| | Developing a Comprehensive Approach to Youth Violence Prevention in a Small CityAbstract A Center for Academic Excellence in Youth Violence Prevention was established in 1999 at Virginia Commonwealth University, in the small city of Richmond, Virginia. The social context of Richmond provides many challenges and assets for preventing youth violence, including high levels of youth exposure to violence and exemplary role models for resiliency. In this paper, the conceptual framework used to guide Center activities is explained first, followed by an accounting of the initial activities for developing a community mobilization process. Next, examples are presented of how the core theme of “Strengthening the Voices of Stakeholders” was implemented at the levels of grassroots/taxpayer, organizations, and systems/policy. A university policy strategy for involving more sectors of the University in community partnerships to prevent youth violence and promote positive early childhood development is then described. The paper closes with an assessment of the mobilization efforts to date and a sketch of new plans for the future. Background  Youth violence is a major public health problem in the United States. Violent injury and death disproportionately affect children, adolescents, and young adults. Homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American youth (15–24 years) and the second leading cause of death for all 15–24-year-olds.1, 2, 3 Fatal violence reflects only the most visible tip of the iceberg when estimating the consequences of violence.4, 5, 6 Aggressive behaviors such as fighting and weapon carrying are extremely common in the daily lives of many adolescents.7 These behaviors may not always lead to physical injuries, but are strongly associated with risk for injury, exposure to intimidation and threats, and perceptions of fear and vulnerability.8, 9, 10 The City of Richmond, Virginia: Challenges Youth violence is a major problem in Richmond, Virginia, a small city with an estimated population of 192,913 in 2006 (54% African American; 40% White; 6% Other and Mixed Race). Youth homicide has decreased nationally in recent years, but increased in Richmond since 2001. The per capita homicide rate has consistently been in the top 10 of all U.S. cities, and recent FBI violent crime statistics ranked Richmond as the ninth most dangerous U.S. city.11 For example, responses to a modified version of the Children’s Report of Exposure to Violence12 in the spring of 1998 from 402 eighth graders at three Richmond middle schools13 (168 boys, 234 girls; 96% African American; 27% living with both biological parents) were used to assess exposure to violence. Most students reported witnessing a stranger being beaten up (72%) or chased or threatened (65%). Students also reported witnessing someone they knew being beaten up (82%) or chased or threatened (58%). Many reported that they had seen a stranger being robbed or mugged (29%), shot (35%), stabbed (19%), or killed (20%) and many had seen someone they knew being robbed or mugged (22%), shot (28%), stabbed (21%), or killed (20%). These students were also frequent victims of violence. Many students had been beaten up (35%), chased or threatened (24%), shot or stabbed (12%), or threatened by someone with a gun (21%) or knife (18%). Furthermore, work by Kliewer and colleagues14 using a community sample of African-American middle- and high-school youth aged 11 to 18 in Richmond showed that 70% witnessed drug deals, 59% saw a mugging, and 52% had seen a person badly wounded after violence, including 30% who witnessed a knife attack and 20% who witnessed a shooting. One of six (17%) had witnessed a murder and nearly all (87%) had heard gunfire near their homes. Historical documents in Richmond (e.g., the “Willie Lynch” letter 15 describing slave owner practices to discourage solidarity and promote hostile competition among slaves) provide evidence that current violence may reflect behavior patterns transmitted across generations. Risk factors for violence, related to the legacy of institutionalized racism, are manifested in limited educational opportunities, underemployment, and concentrated areas of poverty. Poverty indicators for Richmond showed that, in 2004, 28% of children under the age of 17 lived in poverty and in 2006, 74% of school-age children qualified for free lunch.16 Geographical location may also be a factor: Richmond is on Interstate 95, a centralized location on the East Coast which contributes to its being a hub of illegal drug trafficking and provides relatively easy access to legal firearms in Virginia. The City of Richmond, Virginia: Assets Although the complex social context of Richmond plays a role in the city’s challenges, it also plays a role in its assets. Richmond is the state capital of Virginia, has a rich history, and, among its cultural and educational assets is home to Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU). The University student population is diverse (57% White; 20% African American; 11% Asian; 4% Hispanic; and 2% International). VCU is an urban research university with a strong interest in the surrounding communities. One of the themes of its 2020 Strategic Plan is “Maintaining VCU as a Model for University–Community Partnerships.” One such partnership involves the development, evaluation, and dissemination of Responding In Peaceful and Positive Ways (RiPP), a universal violence prevention program for middle schools established through a collaboration of the Richmond Public Schools, the Richmond Behavioral Authority, and VCU (for details, see Meyer17). In rigorous evaluations,17, 18, 19, 20, 21 RiPP has been identified as a Model Program by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The program continues in Richmond Public Schools through a partnership with the Richmond Behavioral Health Authority. Another example of successful violence prevention partnerships between VCU and the community is the selection of the Center for the Study and Prevention of Youth Violence (CSPYV) as an Academic Center of Excellence on Youth Violence Prevention by the CDC in 1999. Conceptual Framework Early in the planning process Center faculty recognized the need to develop a model to accommodate a multidimensional, multimodal approach to understanding, assessing, and preventing youth violence in Richmond. Bronfebrenner’s social–ecological framework22 was ultimately selected. This simple model considers the contributions of the individual child, his or her family, and immediate social relationships (microsystems), connections among the individuals or groups in the youth’s social networks (mesosystems), aspects of the environment that may affect the child indirectly (exosystems), and the broader sociocultural context (macrosystems). It also addresses the pitfalls of using faculty as experts and affirms the need for flexibility to adapt or accommodate to local needs. The ecological framework also provides a useful structure for developing strategies to address problems of youth violence. Having established a conceptual framework for the substance of our work, our next step was to define how to develop our community–university collaboration. We considered the three prevalent models: (1) faculty as expert consultants, (2) a community-directed agenda, in which the work is driven by community members whose expertise is valued over university members, and (3) genuine university–community partnerships in which community-identified goals are addressed collaboratively using knowledge, theory, and methodological tools provided by faculty and students.23 We opted for the third model, in which the strengths of both community and university participants are recognized and used. Consistent with the social–ecological model,22 it was decided that the partnership must include the individuals directly affected by youth violence (i.e., children, families, neighborhood residents) and the many organizations that directly affect the lives of youth and families (i.e., schools, police, child caring agencies), as well as involving government officials and policymakers. The role of university members was consultative and facilitative, providing assistance as requested but being clear that decisions about goals were up to the grassroots groups, service organizations, and policymakers. Faculty expertise was used in assessing need through surveys and focus groups, but it was the responsibility and prerogative of the community to set priorities. A common set of trust-building principles and skills guided the development of partnerships. The key ingredients were: (1) listening and responding to the expressed needs of the community partner; (2) establishing shared goals, expectations, and ground rules; (3) proceeding incrementally; (4) dealing directly with potentially sensitive issues (e.g., control and accountability); and (5) maintaining ongoing communication, including continuous review and evaluation of actual performance in relation to plans.24, 25, 26 Initial Development of Mobilization Process In keeping with the chosen collaborative model, and recognizing the CDC definition of community mobilization as engaging “all sectors of the population in a community-wide effort to address a health, social, or environmental issue,”27 it was apparent the role of the University should be to support the other sectors of the mobilization effort, including grassroots, service providers, and policymakers. We therefore opted to work selectively and incrementally, assisting those initiatives and groups devoted to reducing youth violence who expressed interest in our expertise. Given CSPYV’s desire to avoid duplication of effort and potential conflict within the Richmond prevention community, the leadership decided at the outset to establish linkages with existing youth violence prevention groups and activities. One of the pivotal groups was Friends of Prevention, a consortium of nonprofit agencies in the City of Richmond concerned with health promotion and violence prevention activities. The Center’s program coordinator began attending meetings of Friends of Prevention, became an active participant, and offered to make CSPYV resources available to this group. When the Center was ready to begin its community mobilization process, staff consulted with Friends of Prevention to seek direction. Based on this group’s recommendation, CSPYV decided to conduct a needs assessment with youth, families, and other stakeholders interested in issues of violence prevention. An expert planning committee, composed of neighborhood representatives, members of civic groups, staff of youth-serving agencies, and members of Friends of Prevention, was established to guide development and implementation of the needs assessment. Needs Assessment To engage stakeholders in the community, understand their perceptions, and appropriately redirect University research, a needs assessment of targeted groups of young people, service providers who work with youth, adults who live in affected neighborhoods, and underrepresented minorities (i.e., Latinos and Asian Americans) was conducted. Most prior assessments had been based on the views of a limited number of established community leaders, and the expert panel urged Center staff to listen to affected stakeholders typically not included in planning/policy discussions. By speaking to Latino and Asian American youth and adults, residents of public housing, and other youth, the panel believed a more meaningful assessment of what was needed would be produced. Between May and August 2001, CSPYV staff conducted 20 interviews and focus groups (with 16 adults and 195 young people) on problems related to youth violence and perceptions of Richmond’s strengths and assets. Open-ended questions were employed, based on the Communities that Care model,28 a best practice for community mobilization, which organizes and analyzes risk and protective factors into multiple ecosystem levels, including individual, family, school, and community. Responses to “problems” identified in focus groups were tallied and organized into those four levels, eliminating duplicate references to a topic in the same conversation. Frequency tallies were the primary basis for analysis: those with the highest frequency were identified as critical factors that contributed to violence. Youth and adult respondents generally perceived youth violence to be a complex problem with many risk factors, including individual values, beliefs, and behaviors. Many of the young people felt helpless to change the environment and felt that things would never change. Respondents identified several critical factors associated with the prevalence of violence, including: •Belief or lack of belief in something larger than oneself; •Use of alcohol or drugs, often as self-medication; •Family characteristics such as family violence, child abuse, and parental neglect; •Peer influences such as TV or delinquent friends; •School factors such as unresponsive learning systems and fearful teachers; and •Environmental factors such as living in unsafe neighborhoods, easy access to firearms, limited access to positive role models, and restricted economic opportunities. Respondents also identified potential solutions, including creating more positive parent–child communication, increasing the number of positive caregivers and mentors, increasing opportunity for “fun” activities, eliminating drugs and alcohol, and reducing access to guns. In late August 2001, the results of the needs assessment were presented to the expert planning committee during a one-day planning session, which also focused on identifying priorities for university partnerships based on the results of the assessment. Five priority areas for collaboration were articulated: 1.Develop innovative after-school and summer programs for young people. 2.Increase knowledge of existing resources for violence prevention. 3.Promote positive involvement of police with children. 4.Provide parent education to reduce violence (including intergenerational and grandparent programs). 5.Develop strategies for influencing media portrayal and use of violence. These priorities guided much of the mobilization and research activities of the Center for the subsequent four years of funding, along with an open position about how CSPYV might assist in collaborations to reach community violence prevention goals. The Core Theme: Strengthening the Voices of Stakeholders After clarifying a conceptual framework and priorities, a theme was chosen to help those outside the University understand collaborative goals and to function as a guide in working with stakeholders at three levels: grassroots/taxpayers, organizations, and systems/policy. Through brainstorming and feedback from partners, the theme of “Strengthening the Voices of Stakeholders” was chosen. The examples below illustrate how the theme functioned with each level. Grassroots/Taxpayers-Level Initiatives Data Surveillance Experiences with Residents of East End One of the components of CSPYV is to establish and maintain a surveillance system to monitor changes in youth violence indicators. The surveillance system was also designed to disseminate information to help community members, policymakers, program planners, and researchers understand the problem and design effective prevention programs. The East End of Richmond encompasses some of the city’s oldest neighborhoods, and has struggled for decades with high poverty rates, low educational attainment, and a lack of suitable and affordable housing. The community has been isolated because of geographic and psychological barriers, the perception of the area as being unsafe, and low standardized test scores. Four of Richmond’s seven major public housing developments and a considerable amount of Section 8 housing are in East End. The public housing developments suffer from high levels of drug-related crime, which further isolates these communities from the rest of the city. Not surprisingly, youth who attend East End schools face an often overwhelming array of challenges that test them on a daily basis. Thus, they are in an expert position to provide invaluable information for identifying problems and generating solutions at many levels of the ecological model. A primary CSPYV activity at the grassroots level has been developing a series of maps to visually demonstrate trends in homicides by ZIP codes, housing projects, convenience stores, and relevant Richmond landmarks. These maps have been used to empower community groups to engage local and state agencies in addressing policy change. One such map showed the correlation between homicides and stores in East End selling beer in 40-ounce bottles and fortified wines. With the help of the CSPYV community liaison, a group of community residents used this map to present their concerns to the state liquor board. Discussions based on this information resulted in changes in state licensing practices, thus strengthening the voice of this stakeholder group. Common Ground In an effort to ensure that young people had a voice in identifying priorities and solutions, a youth leadership/civic responsibility program called Common Ground was piloted in the East End, where a merger between two rival high schools was taking place. Both students and adult community members felt they had no say in how, when, or why the merger would happen. Predictions of catastrophe and turf wars abounded and dominated the local news for months. The Center hoped to develop students’ skills for getting along with each other and for initiating and participating in the decision-making processes that affect them. Motivating adults with leadership roles to seek out the youth perspective actively and regularly was also a goal. Although the rationale for the Common Ground program was strong, pilot implementation of a summer and after-school program with 40 students was difficult. The CSPYV staff wanted to work with students to promote leadership and responsibility, while simultaneously providing active support and guidance to students and their families, both for academic achievement and for problem solving on issues related to their high stress levels. Center staff learned that a concrete project on which the students could apply their skills and particular expertise was needed. Training without tangible expression of the skills acquired was viewed by the students as insufficient, and resulted in decreased participation over the year. Fortunately, the merger between the two schools did not result in the extreme violence predicted by local media. Although we cannot determine why the merger was successful nor attribute the positive outcome to our own program, the intention followed in developing this program is probably one that warrants further exploration. Organizational-Level Initiatives Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design In the summer of 2003, CDC presented the opportunity to implement and evaluate a pilot high school Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) intervention. The Director of Safety and Security for the Richmond Public Schools (RPS) welcomed the idea, as the schools had already been exploring this strategy to enhance social–cognitive student-focused approaches. CPTED theory proposes that the form, arrangement, and design of buildings and open spaces can encourage or discourage undesirable behavior and criminal activity.29 Although the literature is replete with findings to indicate that quality of light, cleanliness, and crowding can have direct effects on stress and mood,30, 31 very little literature explores the relationship of these variables to incidents of violence and aggression in schools or how prevention efforts might capitalize on that information. CPTED strategies have been used internationally to design such community features as urban housing, shopping malls, and landscaping. The six main principles for applying CPTED strategies to the school environment are natural surveillance, access management, territoriality, physical maintenance, order maintenance, and other factors (e.g., access to nature, capacity, and inclusiveness).32, 33 For example, natural surveillance involves the design and placement of physical features to maximize visibility and avoid auditory isolation (e.g., by using bright lighting, windows, low landscaping, and raised entrances). The goal of these strategies is to create a warm and welcoming environment, a sense of physical and social order, and a sense of ownership by students, staff, and parents; to send positive message to students; to maximize the presence of authority figures; to minimize opportunities for out-of-sight activities; and to manage access to all school areas. Initially, CSPYV faculty wanted to compare the implementation of CPTED at two physically comparable high schools in neighborhoods with similar levels of community violence: one school would implement the changes and the other school would wait a year to do so. When this idea was rejected by the school administration, a non-experimental design was developed. It involved a comprehensive observational assessment of the building, three focus groups of high school students and parents, and a pre–post self-report student survey. Although much less desirable than CSPYV’s initial proposal, the collaboration with the schools set the stage for their request in the winter of 2005 for CSPYV to conduct the study originally proposed and compare the two similar high schools. Unfortunately, additional changes in school administration kept CPTED and its evaluation at the low end of priorities for the new administrators. Demands on the researchers’ time also caused the research component of this project to be inactivated. The implementation component has continued, however, through a small grant from The Community Foundation, to establish youth-led CPTED projects at the schools (i.e., $4500 for changes to physical structures at each site). A small group of students at each high school, led by an administrator, was formed to select and implement changes based on the observational assessments described above; physical changes to the buildings are underway. Systems/Policy-Level Initiatives City Manager’s Crime Control Plan In November 2003, in response to a significant increase in homicides and other violence, Richmond’s City Manager convened a large planning group that included local, state, and federal government representatives; civic leaders; members of the faith community; businesspeople; community organizations; and interested citizens to develop a comprehensive set of strategies for reducing crime. Viewing this as a good opportunity to extend the Center’s involvement at the policy level, CSPYV offered assistance to the city manager’s office, and was invited to be involved in the planning process. Designated roles for CSPYV were (1) assisting the steering committee in developing guidelines for selecting model programs and (2) educating the four planning subcommittees (Prevention/Education, Policing/Community, Prosecution/Post-adjudication, and Rehabilitation) about research and evidence-based practices to consider. The city manager’s office also contracted with CSPYV to develop and implement an accountability/evaluation process for the implementation phase of the campaign. RPS Superintendent Initiative for Student Excellence In 2004, CSPYV was approached by the RPS Board Chair and the city’s Director of Human Services to assist with the Superintendent’s Initiative for Student Excellence. Several elementary schools had developed good partnerships with faith and business organizations to enhance student learning and the superintendent wished to extend these partnerships to all city schools. CSPYV was asked to develop guidelines and a template for establishing school–community partnerships within each school. The Superintendent’s Initiative steering committee included several business leaders who had spearheaded successful elementary school–community partnerships, and who held strong opinions about what constituted a successful partnership. The challenge for CSPYV was to develop a framework that incorporated the elements of these successful models, while acknowledging that the culture of each school and local community was different and might require strategies and resources for partnership that were responsive to the unique nature of each setting. Drawing on its mission to encourage decisions based on empirical evidence, CSPYV conducted a series of quantitative and qualitative studies of school partnerships within Richmond, as well as a review of the literature of the field of school–community collaboration, to develop guidelines for schools interested in establishing community partnerships to enhance student learning. Expanding the Vision: The Evolution of VCU’s Community Solutions Early in its development, faculty from CSPYV discussed with VCU administrators the potential benefits of extending CSPYV’s community–university partnership paradigm to a broader sector of the University. In 2002, to increase engagement with the local community, a social science task force, including representation from CSPYV, (1) compiled information on VCU’s involvement with the community through research, service, and teaching, and (2) conducted focus groups with a broad range of stakeholders about critical issues confronting metropolitan Richmond and how VCU could help address the concerns. Two target domains were then selected: early childhood development and youth violence. In 2004, VCU Community Solutions became an official program, with CSPYV’s co-director appointed as faculty director for the youth violence initiative. Faculty from all departments and schools were invited to participate in multidisciplinary faculty teams for each focal area; approximately 15 faculty members joined each team. An enthusiastic and involved community advisory committee, composed of policymakers, agency representatives, business leaders, and members of various civic organizations, was also formed. One of the questions they wished to address was how the community would participate in the VCU Community Solutions process, including establishing priorities for the University’s engagement in the community. During its first year of operation, VCU Community Solutions established an infrastructure for involving and supporting faculty in community outreach endeavors; conducted discussions with key community individuals and organizations about potential areas for collaboration; and initiated several innovative education, research, and service projects. Four citizens, knowledgeable about community issues and activities, were selected as Community Scholars and paid a modest annual stipend to participate in such university activities as lecturing in classes, consulting with faculty, and working with the VCU Community Solutions leadership to enhance community partnerships. The establishment of this university-wide effort allowed CSPYV to broaden the base for community engagement activities, giving access to resources across the University.34 Assessing Mobilization Efforts The Role of Evidence-Based Practice A key tenet of University and Academic Center of Excellence program philosophy has been using data and evidence-based practice in community efforts. This is sometimes easy to do, especially when a program has specific objectives and a defined target audience (e.g., in collaborating with community partners on programs to teach middle school children constructive conflict resolution [RiPP] or modifying school environments [CPTED]). Data also helped community residents voice concerns about the negative impact of selling alcoholic beverages at convenience stores. At the policy level, the planning committees on prevention and rehabilitation of the City Manager’s Crime Control Campaign welcomed faculty who shared information about programs with demonstrated effectiveness. Unfortunately, the evidence base is sparse for broader domains such as community mobilization, which require multiple interventions at many levels by many stakeholders. Some approaches, such as “Communities that Care”28 and “Getting to Outcomes,”34 meet the dual criteria of a sound theoretical and empirical underpinning coupled with the flexibility to address each community’s unique conditions. These strategies show promise for guiding community-wide prevention campaigns. However, no off-the-shelf manual exists for consistently producing large-scale positive outcomes. In addition to the inherent challenges, one might ask whether a prescriptive approach at the community level is reasonable or even desirable. Instead, providing a template, guiding principles, and potential strategies may be most helpful for addressing critical factors in planning, implementing, and monitoring a community mobilization campaign. Successes and Shortcomings The performance of VCU’s community mobilization efforts to date may be assessed on several dimensions. First is fidelity to the initial guiding principles of shared university–community responsibilities and input. Second, has the mobilization effort been successful in strengthening the voices of young people, family members, and others directly affected by violence? Third, has the mobilization resulted in greater understanding of and appreciation for the respective partners’ perspectives and strengths, and have relationships become more collaborative and effective? Finally, how successful has this mobilization been in reducing the prevalence of youth violence? In terms of fidelity, faculty and students have adhered fairly consistently to their roles as respectful “guests” in the community. Influential community members report that overall perception of the University is more positive and the credibility of VCU’s expressed intention to work with the community is stronger. Through projects such as Common Ground, and success in changing harmful alcohol sale practices of convenience stores, some citizens have begun to feel and act more empowered. On the other hand, the impact of these activities has been limited, and has not produced major changes in youth and citizen participation and influence in civic affairs. University efforts to have an impact on policy and practice have produced mixed results. On the positive side, VCU quickly reached a level of prominence within city government and the school system through its engagement in the City Manager’s Campaign for Crime Reduction and the Superintendent’s Initiative for Student Excellence. Unfortunately, most such initiatives ended after subsequent changes in city government structure and election of a new mayor, and VCU leadership has been faced with re-establishing a collaborative relationship. Finally, given the complexity and pervasiveness of youth violence and its predisposing conditions, lack of a substantial decrease in Richmond over just a few years is not surprising. Understanding that the process of youth and community development is longitudinal provides little solace in the face of daily violence and suffering. Lessons Learned Size matters Although Richmond is a relatively small city, the intricacies of mobilizing an entire city are daunting. The closest CSPYV came to a citywide effort was the City Manager’s Campaign for Crime Reduction; that initiative could not be sustained after the change in administration and was far from inclusive, with mostly government agency and service provider personnel and only a few grassroots representatives. Attempting to respond to many sectors of the community, we found ourselves engaged in a range of prevention activities that did not represent a comprehensive and unified strategy for mobilizing the entire community. When community-wide mobilization is the goal, defining community more narrowly and targeting a defined geographic area (e.g., a neighborhood) is preferable. Although attempting to mobilize a smaller area is also fraught with challenges, developing a coherent set of initiatives to accomplish goals is easier. Each voice is unique Translating the Center’s mission of strengthening stakeholder voices into action was challenging. Approaches that helped empower one group of stakeholders were not necessarily suitable for another. Working with young people was particularly daunting. Even when we could help them articulate their violence prevention perceptions and suggestions, we were faced with practical logistics (e.g., providing opportunities for a small number of young people to express themselves in a setting dominated by a larger number of outspoken adults). Seeking to capitalize on individual strengths, we found that young people often preferred active projects. Producing a dramatic depiction of an issue or developing a community service project proved to be effective means for strengthening the youth voice. Many voices do not necessarily make a choir Although CSPYV had limited success in assisting youth, neighborhood residents, service providers, and policymakers to articulate their concerns and aspirations, bringing these individuals together to participate in meaningful dialogue was much more difficult. To accomplish this goal, considerable attention must be given to bridging gaps in culture, perception, education, and interests among stakeholder groups. Change happens Effective mobilization requires continuity to build trust and consensus and to provide sufficient time to develop and implement effective strategies. The nature of the political process, with its periodic changes in leadership, does not promote stability, especially in community development and innovation. Though it is beyond anyone’s ability to control these changes, taking them into account may be helpful when planning for community mobilization. One strategy is to develop broad-based coalitions that can partially counterbalance the impact of political turnover. Another approach is to translate the mobilization work into language compatible with the plans and rhetoric of the new administration and try to establish collaborative relationships with key personnel. Connections “r” us Our outreach efforts sometimes produced unanticipated benefits. The interests, needs, and objectives of group aspirations often overlapped, and sometimes fostered alliances in the service of shared goals. For instance, although public school, police, and child-serving agencies share concerns about the safety and positive development of young people, they typically work within their own domains, limiting opportunities to communicate with each other. By pointing out their similar interests and goals, CSPYV was occasionally able to facilitate working alliances. Planning for the Future The CSPYV has merged with another youth-focused center at VCU to form the Clark-Hill Institute for Positive Youth Development, a more comprehensive research and community mobilization organization. The new Institute has modified its course in several ways. A stronger community advisory council has been established to ensure that activities are responsive to community needs and that the research and mobilization activities are better integrated with each other and are consistent with the Institute’s stated objectives. Considerable effort has been invested in improving the ability to evaluate program processes and outcomes systematically. The definition of community has been narrowed, and efforts are being directed toward a few specific geographic areas and target populations. New ways to strengthen the voices of those directly affected by violence—youth and their families—are being explored, such as a youth-led CPTED project to involve high school students directly in selecting and implementing changes to make school environments safer and more attractive. Future plans also include new approaches, such as the development and evaluation of a community-based prevention strategy designed to build community-level social capital. Social capital—resources that can be accessed within neighborhood social networks35—involves shared values, information exchange, and a sense of mutual responsibility. Such an endeavor has the potential to move beyond program benefits gained from outside funds, which will inevitably end, to establishing healthy self-sustaining systems within communities that will serve as protective factors against youth violence. No financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper. References 1. 1Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (producer); 2001;www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars. 2. 2Anderson M, Kaufman J, Simon TR, et al.School-Associated Violent Deaths Study Group School-associated violent deaths in the United States, 1994-1999. JAMA. 2001;286:2695–2702. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
3. 3Anderson RN, Kochanek KD, Murphy SL. Report of final mortality statistics, 1995 (Monthly vital statistics report 45;11(Suppl 2)). Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 1997;. 4. 4Potenza BM, Hoyt DB, Coimbra R, Fortlage D, Holbrook T, Hollingsworth-Fridlund P. The epidemiology of serious and fatal injury in San Diego County over an 11-year period. J Trauma. 2004;56:68–75. MEDLINE 5. 5Wadman MC, Muelleman RL, Coto JA, Kellermann AL. The pyramid of injury: using ecodes to accurately describe the burden of injury. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;42:468–478. Abstract | Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (1105 KB)
|
CrossRef
6. 6Annest JL, Mercy JA, Gibson DR, Ryan GW. National estimates of nonfatal firearm-related injuries: beyond the tip of the iceberg. JAMA. 1995;273:1749–1754. MEDLINE 7. 7Clubb PA, Browne DC, Humphrey AD, Schoenbach V, Meyer B, Jackson MRSVPP Steering Committee. Violent behaviors in early adolescent minority youth: results from a “middle school youth risk behavior survey”. Matern Child Health J. 2001;5:225–235. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
8. 8Nansel TR, Overpeck MD, Haynie DL, Ruan WJ, Scheidt PC. Relationships between bullying and violence among US youth. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003;157:348–353. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
9. 9Jensen GF, Brownfield D. Gender, lifestyles, and victimization: beyond routine activity. Violence Vict. 1986;1:85–99. MEDLINE 10. 10Lowry R, Powell KE, Kann L, Collins JL, Kolbe LJ. Weapon-carrying, physical fighting, and fight-related injury among U.S. adolescents. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14:122–129. Abstract |
Full-Text PDF (1006 KB)
|
CrossRef
11. 11Nolan J. City ninth most dangerous. Richmond Times Dispatch, (2004, November, 23), p. B3. 12. 12Cooley-Quille M, Turner R, Beidel D. Emotional impact of children’s exposure to community violence: A preliminary study. J Am Ac Child & Ado Psych. 1995;34:1362–1368. 13. 13Farrell A, Meyer A, Sullivan T, Kung E. Evaluation of a 7th grade extension of the Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways universal prevention program for reducing violence among urban adolescents. J Child Fam Stud. 2003;12:101–120. 14. 14Wilson D, Kliewer W, Teasley N, Plybon L, Sica D. Violence exposure, catecholamine excretion and blood pressure nondipping status in African American male versus female adolescents. Psychosom Med. 2002;64:906–915. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
15. 15Lynch W. Speech on methods for controlling slaves, 1712. http://www.toptags.com/aama/voices/speeches/willlynch.htm. 16. 16The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Available at: http://www.kidscount.org/cgi-bin/cliks.cgi?action=rank_indicator&subset=VA&areatype=county 17. 17Meyer A, Farrell A. Social skills training to promote resilience in urban sixth grade students: One product of an action research strategy to prevention youth violence in high-risk environments. Educ Treat Child. 1998;21:461–488. 18. 18Farrell A, Meyer A, White K. Evaluation of Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways (RIPP): A school-based prevention program for reducing violence among urban adolescents. J Clin Child Psychol. 2000;30:451–463. 19. 19Farrell A, Valois R, Meyer A, Tidwell R. Impact of the RIPP violence prevention program on rural middle school students: A between schools study. J Prim Prev. 2003;24:143–167.
CrossRef
20. 20Farrell A, Valois R, Meyer A. Evaluation of the RiPP-6 violence prevention program at a rural middle school. Am J Health Educ. 2002;33:167–172. 21. 21Meyer A, Farrell A, Northup W, Kung E, Plybon L. Promoting non-violence in middle schools. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press; 2000;. 22. 22Bronfenbrenner U. Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Dev Psychol. 1986;22:723–742.
CrossRef
23. 23Denner J, Cooper C, Lopez E, Dunbar N. Beyond “giving science away”: How university-community partnerships inform youth programs, research and policy. Soc Policy Rep. 1999;XIII:1–18. 24. 24Friend M, Cook L. Collaboration as a predictor for success in school reform. J Educ Psychol Consult. 1990;1:69–86. 25. 25Israel B, Schulz A, Parker E, Becker A. Review of community-based research to improve public health. Ann Rev Public Health. 1998;19:173–202. 26. 26Trickett E, Espino S. Collaboration and social inquiry: Multiple meanings of a construct and its role in creating useful and valid knowledge. Am J Community Psychol. 2004;34:1–69. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
27. 27National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. National Framework for the Academic Centers of Excellence for Youth Violence. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2003;. 28. 28Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Arthur MW. Promoting science-based prevention in communities. Addict Behav. 2002;27:951–976. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
29. 29Crowe T. Crime prevention through environmental design. Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2000;. 30. 30Sprague J, Walker HM, Sowards S, Van Bloem C, Eberhardt P, Marshall B. Sources of vulnerability to school violence: Systems-level assessment and strategies to improve safety and climate. In: Shinn MR, Walker HM, Stoner G editor. Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists; 2002;p. 295–314. 31. 31Astor R, Meyer H, Behre W. Unowned places and times: Maps and interviews about violence in high schools. Am Educ Res J. 1999;36:3–42. 32. 32Florida Department of Education. Florida safe school design guidelines: Strategies to enhance security and reduce vandalism. http://www.firn.edu/doe/edfacil/safe_schools.htm2003;. 33. 33VCU Community Solutions. http://www.vcu.edu/communitysolutions. 34. 34Chinman M, Imm P, Wandersman A. Getting to outcomes: Promoting accountability through methods and tools for planning, implementation and evaluation. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation; 2004;. 35. 35Coleman J. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol. 1988;94:S95–S120. Center for the Study and Prevention of Youth Violence, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia  Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Robert Cohen, PhD, Professor of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1200 East Broad Street, Richmond VA 23298-0489.
PII: S0749-3797(07)00748-9 doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.12.006 © 2008 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | |
|
FULL TEXT