| | Partnerships for Preventing Violence: A Locally-Led Satellite Training ModelAbstractLocal face-to-face provider training has the benefit of enabling participants to network with people in their communities who are working on similar issues, to engage in interactive discussions, and to learn from local experts and local program examples. However, face-to-face training has considerable costs (labor and expense) and provides limited exposure to national experts. In recent years, technology has allowed training methods to expand to include distance learning methods (satellite and web-based). The newer methods can decrease per-person training costs, provide exposure to national experts, and result in wide dissemination of information. Yet these distance learning methods often limit the ability of participants to interact and network with each other and substantially reduce opportunities to apply the learning objectives to local circumstances. To maximize the benefits of both models, the Harvard School of Public Health, the Prevention Institute, and the Education Development Center developed, implemented, and evaluated Partnerships for Preventing Violence (PPV), an innovative six-part satellite training series on the public health approach to preventing youth violence. Using a unique hybrid methodology that combines satellite training with local, face-to-face facilitation by trained experts, PPV trained over 13,000 people, generated youth violence prevention activities across the country, and created a national cadre of youth violence prevention leaders. Overview  Provider and community resident training has been a major part of violence prevention strategies in the United States for over 20 years.1, 2, 3 Training is recognized as a tool for program implementation, advocacy, social movement building, and as a strategy for institutionalizing programmatic activities. Provider training is one of the six levels of prevention in the widely used Spectrum of Prevention.4 Until recent technological advances, most training activities occurred in face-to-face settings (classrooms, conferences, workshops). Advances in technology have created opportunities for distance learning that are now a routine part of training activities. Webinars (“web” seminars) are one of the latest applications of distance learning options. Through satellite and web-based trainings, large numbers of individuals can be expeditiously and uniformly trained. Also, these forms of distance learning often have a much lower cost per participant than direct training.5 This paper introduces a unique training format that combines the benefits of face-to-face training with the benefits of satellite training. The thought processes underpinning the development of this training methodology are presented; best practices are outlined; evaluation data is discussed; and the strengths and limitations of this approach are considered. Conceptualization The Formative Model In 1995, the Harvard School of Public Health, the Prevention Institute, and the Education Development Center formed a partnership to train practitioners to prevent youth violence. The final training program, “The Advanced Training of Trainers in Violence Prevention” (TOT), focused on developing skills related to coalition-building, group facilitation, policy development, and on-air public speaking. Over a three-year period, 230 people successfully completed the TOT training and became part of a network of violence prevention leaders throughout the country.1, 6 Program participant surveys and training summaries indicated that the information presented had practical application and could be put to immediate use in communities. Those who received the TOT training ultimately trained more than 20,000 additional practitioners. Yet the demand for the training far outweighed the team’s ability to supply it. Communities across the country requested more and more assistance with strategies to stem the tide of youth violence and promote peace. The funder, the U.S. Department of Education, pleased with the results, encouraged the team to take the project “to scale.” It was not feasible for the team to travel around the country fulfilling the requests for training. In addition, few organizations and individuals working in youth violence prevention could afford to travel even to a regional location, despite free training. In response to this overwhelming demand, the three funded partners (Harvard, Prevention Institute, and the Education Development Center) determined that, to expand training capacity exponentially and generate a national youth violence prevention movement, large numbers of individuals and organizations should be trained in the public health approach to youth violence prevention and mobilized to act in their local communities. The public health approach views violence as a preventable problem, most effectively addressed the same way as all other public health issues: identification of risk and protective factors, development and testing of prevention strategies, and implementation and dissemination of these strategies. Emergence of a New Model To achieve the goal of a broader reach, the TOT partnership began to investigate the feasibility of distance learning strategies and satellite technology. These approaches, in particular, were appealing for many reasons, including (1) the capacity to monitor the quality and ensure the uniformity of the information provided, (2) the potential to train teams or whole coalitions from a local community, (3) the ability to reach far greater numbers of participants, and (4) the opportunity to increase the capacity of practitioners to reduce violence in their communities. Satellite technology became the focus because of the wide availability of downlink sites.a Downlink sites are available in many community colleges, health facilities, public schools, and government agencies, including National Guard training facilities. The team saw that, even in remote locations, downlink sites would be fairly accessible to the average person. At the time (late 1990s), this seemed preferable to web-based training, as it allowed for the gathering of local leaders and activists necessary for the desired networking and collaborative activities. In addition, watching a large television or auditorium screen presented the opportunity for local organizational activities that would be impossible if individuals watched the broadcast alone at computer monitors. Although satellite training would greatly expand the numbers of individuals trained, it had one major drawback: it did not facilitate local adaptation. Local face-to-face training, even when the presenters are national figures, can be tailored to the needs of an individual community through audience questions, local panelists, and responders. Local leadership is often highlighted and local impact emphasized. The TOT initiative offered the advantage of intense local leadership development and training content tailored to the local audience. How could satellite broadcast training do the same? Out of this conundrum, a new model was developed, which involved training local leaders to serve as facilitators of national satellite broadcasts in their own towns and neighborhoods. Implementation: Locally–Led National Satellite Training Model Partnerships for Preventing Violence (PPV) was the first application of this hybrid model of satellite training with face-to-face facilitation. The six-part series on youth violence prevention, conducted from 1998–2001, was co-funded by the U.S. Departments of Education (Safe and Drug-Free Schools Office), Justice (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention), and Health and Human Services (Health Resources and Services Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Indian Health Service). The main goal was to increase violence prevention knowledge and skills among diverse professionals (particularly in health, justice, and education) by showing what works and highlighting successful violence prevention programs around the country. A secondary goal was to develop and enhance leadership capacity of a multidisciplinary network of local leaders working to empower their communities to prevent youth violence. The hybrid model is well suited to catalyze community mobilization because hearing about others’ collective actions to prevent violence gives participants an opportunity to take action in their own communities.6 In the final six-part PPV product, facilitators were encouraged to recruit participants for the entire series. Recognizing the likelihood of losing and gaining participants, however, each broadcast was developed to stand alone. Each session consisted of: •a live, real-time satellite broadcast; •nationally trained, locally based, onsite facilitators; •pre-recorded footage of 4–7 exemplary programs aired during the live broadcast; •a professional moderator, two content-oriented discussants, and guests (frequently, representatives of the aired programs) at the uplink site; •opportunities for the audience to call, fax, or email questions to studio guests or discussants; and, •pre-, mid-, and post-broadcast activity templates for completion at downlink sites. Facilitators were encouraged to tailor and modify these to the needs of local audiences. Often, local facilitators arranged for speakers to discuss specific application of the broadcast topic to their communities. The PPV team reached two conclusions about the new methodology: (1) It had great promise in cost-effectively training large numbers of people; and (2) Its ultimate success was based on several key elements or “best practices.” Best Practices in Implementing Locally–Led National Satellite Training Methodology The initial six-part series revealed several key factors for success. The lessons learned can serve as best practices for working with facilitators, content, presentation, and evaluation. Facilitators Use motivated local facilitators The team solicited applications from people trained in TOT, and also advertised with a broad range of health, education, and justice agencies. Identifying the right people to provide the local tailoring, marketing, and follow-up was crucial to success. The PPV team selected facilitators based on: •Geographic diversity •Racial/ethnicity diversity •Local leadership profile •Access to community partners •Interest and experience in youth violence prevention •Organizational support/base •Successful participation in TOT The level of each facilitator’s motivation and local institutional support is important. Most facilitators selected were engaged in violence prevention work as part of their regular job responsibilities and were affiliated with (1) local or state education agencies, (2) local or state departments of health, (3) local community-based, not-for-profit agencies, or (4) local police or juvenile justice departments. Train facilitators face-to-face Fifty local leaders—many of them former TOT participants— were selected to serve as the local facilitators for the satellite broadcasts. Each year, the PPV team trained facilitators in two-day sessions with several learning objectives: (1) Review and become competent to teach the content of the upcoming broadcast; (2) Practice the pre-, mid- and post- broadcast exercises they would lead; (3) Learn strategies for marketing the broadcast and recruiting an audience; (4) Understand the evaluation mechanism and their role in collecting the materials; (5) Share strategies with each other; and (6) Become familiar with the terminology, potential problems, technical resources, and broadcast processes for local downlink sites. The trainings provided local leaders the opportunity to learn new skills, to have their work validated and acknowledged, and to learn from each other. Facilitators were excellent resources for each other and benefited simply from hearing one another’s stories, affirming that they were not alone in their struggles. (It should also be noted that, because demand for training exceeded capacity, facilitators who were unable to attend the in-person training could still register local “independent” sites. These sites were considered separately in the evaluation of the broadcasts, and are discussed below.) Provide ongoing technical assistance A PPV staff person was assigned as a primary contact for each facilitator. Facilitators also received guidebooks to assist in organizing the broadcast, templates for activities and publicity information, and pre-packaged publicity materials. Facilitators often provided technical assistance to each other via a PPV listserv. Acknowledge and recognize facilitators’ efforts The names of all facilitators appeared during the credits of each broadcast. Afterwards, each facilitator received a certificate of participation, a thank-you note, and a phone call from the three project partners. Although repeated verbal reassurance is important, formal written acknowledgement and praise cannot be overestimated. In addition to the facilitators, all participants who completed and faxed back an attendance form also received a certificate of participation, which many were able to use in conjunction with a hard-copy packet of materials to successfully obtain accreditation hours. Content and Presentation Select a producer who understands the needs of the funder and the audience Because the team wanted the audience to be active participants in the training process rather than passive recipients of information, a professional producer and production crew with experience in entertainment and commercial programming were hired. In making this choice, we looked for a producer who understood the conceptual framework, the need to provide a large amount of accurate technical information in an engaging format, what constitutes “good” television, and the difference between training and simply informing. The pre-, mid-, and post-broadcast exercises had to be woven into the broadcast, viewed not as an interruption of the programming but as a critical part of the learning experience for the audience. The “roll-ins,” pre-produced segments aired during the live broadcast, also had to be produced. The PPV series roll-ins featured programs from participating sites across the country that demonstrated the key objectives of that particular broadcast. The complicated tasks of identifying the programmatic examples to highlight, arranging to film the sites and interview those involved, selecting the questions to ask and the key points to highlight, conducting the interviews, and editing the tapes to capture the important information in five minutes are all best done by an engaged, talented producer. Selecting the right producer can make or break the satellite effort. If the broadcast leans too far toward entertainment, information can be compromised or omitted altogether. On the other hand, a dry, didactic presentation can compromise learning because of audience boredom and subsequent loss of attention. The balance depends on the producer working closely with the team. Engaging production is critical not only for the success of each individual broadcast but for the series as a whole. The training will be more effective if the audience is engaged, returns for later broadcasts, and encourages colleagues to do the same. Develop engaging and informative content appropriate for a diverse audience Given the complex nature of youth violence and the need to cut across three primary disciplines (education, health, and justice), the PPV team wanted to develop broadcast content that minimized jargon and provided helpful information or skills for participants with diverse backgrounds and areas of expertise. The six satellite broadcasts each covered a specific violence-related issue in a multidisciplinary manner (Table 1). A panel of experts was engaged for each topic and, via teleconferencing, the important lessons and learning objectives were clarified, references for the training materials were identified, expert on-air participants were recommended, and feedback on the script for the show was provided. | | |  | Broadcast title | Topics presented | |
|---|
| I. Working with Schools and Communities | Definition of violence; need for comprehensive solutions; examples of programs with education, justice, and health working together; the Spectrum of Prevention as a tool for communities working on violence prevention. | | | II. Organizing for Change | Definition and methods of community organizing and coalition building; organizational strategies appropriate for local utilization; examples of programs using collaborative strategies; eight steps to coalition building; barriers to coalition building and ways to overcome them. | | | III. Safe Schools, Safe Communities: Building Bridges | Elements of a safe school plan; importance of school-wide climate change in prevention approaches; need for youth leadership, parent and staff participation, and developmentally and culturally appropriate programming; the Spectrum of Prevention as a framework for the development and implementation of a comprehensive school-centered violence prevention initiative. | | | IV. Strengthening Schools and Communities | Relationship between school violence and community violence; ways violence affects health, mental health, and academic development; meaning and importance of resiliency; importance of parents and guardians in a comprehensive violence prevention plan; use of Early Warning, Timely Response Guide and Tool Kit; awareness of community resources; advantages and challenges of opening schools to the broader community; best practices of successful school-community partnerships. | | | V. Preventing Bias and Promoting Respect | Interrelationship of bias, hate, and violence; utilization of the Spectrum of Prevention to foster environments in which all people are respected; importance of exposure to individuals of diverse backgrounds and preferences; community mobilization against hate and bias; examples of programs promoting tolerance and respect related to issues of cliques, race/ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, and/or gender. | | | VI. Bringing the Elements Together: Ending the Cycle of Violence | Complexities and interconnectedness of different types of violence, including domestic and dating violence, child abuse, youth violence, and suicide; advantages of multifaceted, interdisciplinary violence prevention strategies; examples of versatile strategies that grant practitioners the knowledge, skills, and confidence necessary to implement such comprehensive strategies on the local level. | | | | |
Tailor broadcast format and schedule to audience needs Each broadcast was moderated by a professional news anchor, whose expertise in live television was invaluable in helping the studio guests feel comfortable and in creating smooth transitions between the four to seven “roll-ins” and live discussion. Two content-oriented discussants joined the moderator in the studio. Each three-hour broadcast aired live. Generally, broadcasts were divided into two parts with a mid-broadcast break of 40 minutes, before which the national moderator introduced exercises to be conducted locally. A calendar of national violence prevention events scrolled across the video screen during the break, while the local facilitators led participants in the exercises. The broadcasts were scheduled during working hours to encourage participation of school professionals and others working in fields related to violence prevention. Many facilitators raised funds to provide stipends so that community members who did not work in related fields and would need to take time off from work could attend. Develop audience materials suitable for download and hard copy distribution Background and resource materials were handed out to audience participants. The packets included information about PPV, the broadcast agenda, biographies of the speakers, articles and references, resource materials, activity sheets for the mid-broadcast exercise, forms for ordering copies of the broadcast, and broadcast evaluation forms. These materials, available for downloading on a PPV-dedicated website and distributed in hard copy at facilitated downlink sites, reinforced and expanded on the material contained in the broadcast and therefore served as a resource for participants long after the broadcast series ended. Evaluation Build evaluation into the project at the outset To ensure that evaluation met the needs of local sites, a draft evaluation instrument was presented to the facilitators for review and comment, and revised on the basis of this feedback. Evaluation goals included providing systematic feedback on broadcast content, implementation, and logistics to inform subsequent broadcast decisions. In addition, evaluation can identify areas of success and areas in need of improvement, to monitor progress, to inform local efforts, and, where appropriate, to leverage resources for future local efforts. Evaluation can also provide systematic data on the implementation of the broadcasts, document process objectives, and provide data on audience response to each broadcast. To meet the needs of local sites, the evaluation process should collect and analyze data to provide a preliminary indication of local program outcomes. Evaluation and Outcomes The PPV evaluation was designed to assess the process of the locally led, national satellite trainings and to inform the development of subsequent broadcasts. It consisted of two parts: evaluation of the facilitator trainings and evaluation of the larger satellite training series. Facilitator Trainings Evaluation results indicated that most facilitators felt the trainings met their expectations and prepared them to facilitate upcoming broadcasts. Over 90% of facilitators left the trainings feeling well supported by the PPV team and 80% reported an overall positive impression of the broadcast series. Facilitator comments also reflected that the trainings reinvigorated local leadership. Quantitative and qualitative data reflect the importance of the annual facilitator trainings and help explain the effectiveness of this type of model. The trainings prepared facilitators for their local responsibilities and connected them to a broader, national movement. This helped reduce the isolation many felt in their individual communities and inspired them to take action. Satellite Training Although a rigorous outcome study was beyond the scope of the current evaluation, use of a post-broadcast questionnaire (the PPV Outcome Survey) permitted an exploratory look at the project’s outcomes. More than 700 participants from 52 sites responded to the PPV Outcome Survey. This group represented a professionally and racially diverse sample, more than 80% of whom were residents in their communities before the broadcast series began in 1998. In addition to the post-test only outcome data, pre-broadcast questionnaires were administered before the first broadcast. A total of 615 pre-broadcast questionnaires and 437 PPV Outcome Surveys (post-broadcast questionnaires) were completed at 24 sites. The primary project outcomes, inclusive of data from these surveys, are presented below. 1. Reached a large audience with violence prevention content and skills Sites facilitated by those who had participated in face-to-face training (“core” sites) were supplemented by “independent” sites. As noted earlier, individuals who were unable to attend a facilitated core site or were interested in facilitating their own local site could register, without fee, as an independent site for the series, beginning with Broadcast 2. These sites received no personalized assistance from the PPV staff and did not have a facilitator who was trained at one of the three PPV facilitator trainings. However, registration was required to obtain the satellite coordinates for the broadcast downlink and was used as a mechanism to identify how many such sites existed. A large number of independent sites consistently registered for the broadcasts. Even though the independent sites were beyond the original scope of work, to get a better idea of their characteristics we began to include them in the evaluation process at Broadcast 3. More than 100 independent sites registered for each broadcast. A total of 132 sites registered for Broadcast 2, 115 for Broadcast 3, 265 for Broadcast 4, 146 for Broadcast 5, and 173 for Broadcast 6. (Table 2) shows estimated audience size across the six-part series. The overwhelming site registration data emphasize the demand for this type of training methodology; in times of financial cutbacks, this methodology permits agencies and organizations to provide professional development at little or no cost and presents the opportunity to learn from and dialogue with national experts. In addition to recruiting a large viewing audience, the PPV series was successful in communicating violence prevention content and skills to those at the local level: approximately one third of post-survey respondents reported highly positive levels of effective practice and knowledge of effective practice, violence prevention activity, collaborative efforts, and multilevel strategies to promote violence prevention in their communities. Moreover, nearly one third of respondents indicated that these levels (of effective practice, violence prevention activity, and collaborative effort) had improved since the start of the broadcasts. 2. Communicated effective violence prevention approaches to a multidisciplinary audience Preventing youth violence requires the engagement of people and organizations from diverse sectors, including law enforcement, education, health, the faith community, and business. Thus, the team charged the facilitators with recruiting a multidisciplinary audience to their downlink site. The facilitators were very successful in achieving this outcome (Table 3). Post-survey results suggest that the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration around youth violence prevention was effectively communicated: participants indicated that health and human service agencies, criminal justice, and education were all leading approaches within their communities. In addition to discovering that all of these approaches were used in communities, the team also wanted to know who was the leading the efforts and if this constellation changed over time; data from those who completed the pre- and post-broadast surveys permitted us to look at this factor. The largest increases in organizational involvement and leadership between pre-Broadcast 1 and post-Broadcast 6 occurred in public health, child protection, health care, and local foundations. Leadership and involvement from municipal government was the lone notable decrease. Six sectors were consistently identified as leaders in violence prevention in communities: youth-serving agencies, law enforcement, public health, child protection, schools, and health care. Overall, 15 of the 21 items used to form the Organizational Leadership Index (developed by De Vos; unpublished) demonstrated a gain in leadership score over the course of the broadcast series. The results validated the success of the PPV approach: the series targeted those in health, justice, and education, and leadership gains were demonstrated in these areas. Declines seen in government and municipal leadership could reflect local budget cuts in many locations or a shift in the responsibility of local violence prevention from solely a government responsibility to a joint government–community responsibility. 3. Trained local leaders to enhance effectiveness The PPV team felt that local leaders were of critical importance in preventing violence. We were privileged to have charismatic national leaders to assist in the training of local leaders and as key players in the development and implementation of the satellite broadcast. However, the local leaders themselves had the greatest impact, as evidenced by participant evaluation results from those with a trained local facilitator versus those independent sites without a facilitator. Participant satisfaction at core (i.e., PPV-facilitated sites) versus independent sites differed considerably across the broadcast series. An overall positive impression of the broadcasts was expressed by 84% of core participants compared with 57% of independent site registrants. Additionally, 66% of core participants felt the broadcasts met their personal needs, compared with 46% of registrants at independent sites. In terms of meeting community needs, the results, however, were similar: 69% of core participants versus 64% of independent registrants. The team was also able to examine the effects of cumulative facilitator training on facilitators’ sense of preparedness and effectiveness and on participant impressions of facilitator performance. The number of trainings completed (0–3) was positively related to facilitators’ sense of their own preparedness but showed no relationship to their sense of effectiveness. In contrast, participants judged that facilitators who received more training were more effective than those who received less training. These data lend further support to the locally led, national satellite training methodology. Just as the prior registration data reflected the need for satellite training, the participant evaluation results from sites with a PPV-trained facilitator versus independent sites emphasizes the critical role the local facilitator plays in the effectiveness of the satellite training. Our results suggest that the satellite training is more effective when it is guided and enhanced by a local, trained facilitator. 4. Empowered local communities In the post-broadcast survey, more than half of respondents noted high awareness of violence as a problem at the close of broadcasts; considerable change in awareness had also occurred over the course of the series. Nearly 75% of participants were aware of a violence prevention coalition, task force, or network within their communities and nearly 50% were members of one of these entities. Facilitators were agents for change in their communities. Beginning with Broadcast 3, the team modified the facilitator evaluation form by adding two open-ended questions about local violence prevention activities implemented as a result of the broadcast series. More than half of the core sites (those with trained facilitators) conducted activities during the PPV series or had plans to conduct future activities. Most core sites conducted activities at the time of the broadcast throughout the series. Approximately 60% of the core sites also conducted or planned to conduct interim local activities between the broadcasts. Site activities can be categorized as follows: •Training: Participants use the broadcasts as tools for violence prevention training. •Repurposing: Broadcast tapes are shown to new viewers in various settings. •Youth activities: Participants conduct violence prevention activities for youth in their community. •Working groups: Coalitions, task forces, steering committees, and similar groups are created. •Funding: Participants collaborate on proposals for funding. •Networking: Participants from diverse violence prevention backgrounds remain connected after broadcast. •Other: Activities that do not fit conveniently into another category. These activities reflect the success of the model in catalyzing a national movement; facilitators’ only requirements were to attend the annual training, recruit people to watch broadcasts at downlink sites, and return evaluation materials to the PPV team. Nonetheless, the vast majority of facilitators were inspired to take additional action in their local communities. Data from the 24 sites that completed both the pre- and post-broadcast surveys reveal slight (statistically nonsignificant) gains in both awareness of and membership in organized community violence prevention work. Approximately three of four respondents were aware of such groups both before (75.3%) and after (76.0%) the broadcast series and nearly half were members (47.3% before, 50.0% after). However, post-broadcast survey results emphasize the community-level benefit of PPV: more than 75% of respondents attributed some contribution of the broadcast series and related activities to changes in their communities. In addition, approximately 30% of post-broadcast survey respondents felt that community leadership had become more effective over the duration of the series. Limitations of the Locally–Led National Satellite Training Methodology Expense Although the model presented here is far less expensive than face-to-face training for all participants, any face-to-face training is more expensive than satellite training in terms of both time and money. Staff time is required to provide technical assistance to local facilitators: each PPV staffer was responsible for providing ongoing technical assistance to approximately 10 local facilitators, via individual and group conference calls. Most technical assistance involved advice about site logistics (e.g., parking, lunch, attendance certificates), registration information, and publicity. In addition to providing technical assistance, a dedicated PPV staff (at least four staff members working on PPV approximately 60% of their time, or 2.4 FTEs) was needed to (1) create the roll-ins, which included researching broadcast content, working with the producer and broadcast company to select programs, identifying individuals to be interviewed and developing questions, and assisting in reviewing and editing the pieces; (2) identify and prepare live studio guests; (3) develop, implement, and evaluate facilitator trainings; and (4) develop and disseminate broadcast activities and materials. Logistical Challenges Across Time Zones One of the benefits of the PPV series was that the live, national broadcast permitted participants to engage in interactive conversations both at their local sites and with national experts at the main uplink site. However, this strength also presented challenges in scheduling, because sites were located in all U.S. time zones. The audience also varied widely, consisting of teachers and administrators, community-based practitioners, police officers, and others. Given the geographic and professional diversity of participants, it was difficult to select an air time to meet everyone’s needs. (The team selected 12:30–3:30 pm Eastern time as a compromise.) In addition to timing, working with downlink sites across the U.S. inevitably exposes the broadcast to the risk that some site(s) may be experiencing natural disturbances (e.g., storms) that can interfere with local training activities. Entertainment Production Quality Often Competes with Traditional Training Strategies A live broadcast presents many challenges. First, it requires moderators and presenters who are very familiar with the material under discussion and can respond to questions posed by the viewing audience, because an exact script cannot be followed. Therefore, even the most skilled presenter may leave out information over the course of a three-hour broadcast. In addition, the format of mixing in the pre-recorded roll-ins with the live broadcast requires presenter familiarity with the programs featured in the roll-ins and the ability to segue into an interactive dialogue with other presenters and the live audience about the material. Further, as previously mentioned, a successful live training broadcast requires a producer and a production company who know how to balance skill development and entertainment. Lack of Complete Control Although the broadcast format did ensure some degree of uniformity across sites, one of the challenges was tailoring activities to fit local needs. This had to be done by local facilitators; the national PPV team could not determine what local activities and speakers would be useful and applicable in each local community context. The team did present local sites with suggested mid- and post-broadcast activities, and encouraged tailoring of activities to make them useful locally. Many communities used the 40-minute mid-broadcast break to have local speakers discuss local violence prevention; others followed the broadcast with speakers, activities, or both. The team did not require approval of local activities and thus had to rely upon facilitator expertise in developing and implementing them. Turnover Some facilitators worked on several broadcasts, whereas some were new and had never facilitated a broadcast. The PPV team tried to address this challenge by developing a new facilitator orientation session and information packet for each facilitator training. Outgoing facilitators were encouraged to identify a replacement, ideally someone who had participated in previous broadcasts. There did, however, appear to be some benefit in the mix of novice and veteran facilitators; veterans served as mentors to the new facilitators. Difficult to Evaluate Impact on Youth Morbidity and Mortality The PPV project was not designed as a research study to measure changes in youth injury morbidity and mortality in participating communities. To evaluate these outcomes, a case control study would be necessary, with participating experimental downlink sites matched with nonparticipating sites on key demographic variables (e.g., community size, race/ethnicity, age of population, crime rate). Changes in key variables (e.g., violence-related youth emergency department visits, age-specific mortality statistics, number of prevention activities) in control and experimental communities could then be measured at baseline (prior to series commencement) and several months or a year after the series to evaluate the impact of the broadcast series. As is the case with any community-level intervention, though, it is difficult to recruit a large enough sample to generate sufficient statistical power to detect even a moderate effect size using community as the unit of analysis. It is also difficult to control for the multitude of intervening variables, such as changes in local policy or programming, or a high-profile tragedy that may affect outcomes. Nevertheless, this type of analysis would be informative. Strengths of Locally–Led National Satellite Training Methodology Fosters Local Leadership As the evaluation data indicate, our facilitators did not limit themselves to merely conducting activities on the day of the broadcast, but took it upon themselves to initiate and coordinate a host of activities incorporating lessons learned from the satellite broadcasts. These activities highlight the fact that fostering local leadership through face-to-face leadership development activities catalyzes local action. Facilitator trainings provide an opportunity for skill development and can also empower local leadership around the initiation and implementation of local violence prevention efforts. Satellite broadcasts can serve as tools or methods to bring about change. Thus, facilitator training is as important as satellite training. A key factor in the success of any movement is inspirational national leaders and their empowerment of local leaders. Several years after project funding had ended, the project partners still heard from PPV facilitators working to prevent to violence in their communities; this is a reflection of facilitators’ level of inspiration and dedication to preventing violence and to the success of the PPV model overall. Enhances Multidisciplinary Collaboration Violence prevention requires diverse stakeholders to forge a common vision, shared strategy, and coordinated activities. The development of a shared language and common framework, therefore, is vital. The PPV model had multidisciplinary experts as studio guests and engaged a multidisciplinary audience. Additionally, the use of roll-ins featuring collaborations (e.g., local police departments, school districts, and community agencies) modeled strategies for successful multidisciplinary collaboration to sites across the country. Hybrid Model Allows for the Best of Both Worlds The hybrid model presented here facilitates the exposure of large numbers of people to national experts and provides the opportunity to network with those in the local community about evidence-based strategies that can be adapted to local needs and constituencies. For example, although PPV initially capped the number of facilitators at 50, the overwhelming response caused the number of trained facilitators to grow with each annual training. Ultimately, 84 local leaders participated in at least one annual facilitator training and hosted at least one of the six broadcasts. They then returned to their local communities, identified a local downlink site, and recruited a multidisciplinary group of participants to view the satellite broadcast series. They also engaged in activities to tailor the broadcasts to their local setting and created follow-up activities and opportunities. Flexible Design and Content Meet the Needs of Many The satellite training design had multiple functions that allowed flexibility for local sites based on local needs. The model allowed local leaders to tailor the training events for their own needs and to build on their own community assets. The training content provided an overall vision, a framework, and tools, while recognizing that specific approaches and solutions would be local. The overall format recognizes and honors the dual nature of solutions, providing a national resource to meet local needs. Gives People a Reason to Participate Incentives for participation in training are critical. If the primary audience is diverse, use of multiple incentives (e.g., access to national leadership on the topic; quality training content credibly delivered by national violence prevention leaders; continuing education credits; and certificates of completion from a recognized and well-regarded source) is advantageous. The satellite training events can become “local draws” in and of themselves, offering access to national leaders. Local leaders must trust the quality of the broadcasts enough to convene local stakeholders around the satellite downlink event and be able to offer a high-quality local event. Values Networks Although local solutions are key, local leaders benefit from a network of peers and others struggling with the same issues. In the case of PPV, the national leadership (e.g., those leading the training effort and associated partners) owned and led the effort to provide support for practitioners on the ground, who, in turn, became a resource and support network for each other. The development of networks fostered engagement in and commitment to the overall initiative, helped to energize local leaders struggling with the everyday realities of prevention, provided resources for intellectual and emotional support, and helped to overcome the isolation that many local leaders experienced, especially in those communities where youth violence prevention activities were a new development. A primary benefit of conducting the trainings at a local downlink site (as opposed to having people log on to the broadcast from their own computers) is the opportunity to meet and network with people from other sectors in the community with whom participants would not otherwise have contact. Evaluation Results Present Both National and Local Data Providing national and local evaluation data is beneficial to local sites for several reasons: the data can be used to inform local planning and implementation, to enhance local visibility, and to leverage funds for local activities (our facilitators frequently lacked local data about youth violence, and without this information they struggled to secure funding). National data allowed for comparison and data-driven decision making. Of utmost importance to our local sites was the provision of a tool and mechanism to obtain local data about a given issue coupled with the ability to compare local results to similar communities and to national data. In addition, facilitators were able to use local data to encourage participation in broadcast and subsequent youth violence prevention activities. Significance and Next Steps The locally facilitated, national satellite methodology created an opportunity for people across the country to make a decision about whether or not to become active in the violence prevention movement. Oliver posits7 that hearing about others’ collective action is a major event that can spur people to action. The likelihood that someone will respond to the collective action of others and take action themselves is, in large part, related to (1) the similarity between those who have already taken action and those who are exposed to the collective action, and (2) when an occasion for deciding is presented to the latter group.6 Thus, those attending the broadcast at downlink sites might not have been spurred to action by hearing national experts or even local leaders from different communities speak, but were more likely to act when they heard about the actions taken by others in their own community. Often, an occasion for deciding is catalyzed by a negative event, such as a shooting or another violent incident. The PPV broadcasts were unique in that they provided a positive opportunity for decision and action. The hybrid model presented here catalyzed local action to prevent violence. Evaluation data indicate three primary benefits of this model: (1) Establishing and maintaining a nationwide network of violence prevention practitioners; (2) Providing an “occasion for deciding” and thus, mobilizing local leaders and communities to take actions tailored to the unique needs and strengths of their communities, grounded in the public health model; and (3) Improving training outcomes for local participants through interaction with a trained, onsite facilitator. Because the current project did not measure community action outcomes, continued research into both knowledge about and activities resulting from this kind of training is needed to better understand what contributes to community action and empowerment. Although the findings reported here should be replicated by others, preferably with a case-control study design, the data presented indicate that this model has tremendous potential. For example, it has been used to address public health preparedness, intimate partner violence prevention, and violence against women—and these are just a few of the topics that could be effectively addressed via this format. In addition, given the recent increases in violent crime in major cities nationwide, the need to share best practices and inspire local leaders to action is of vital importance. Given a new generation of technically savvy community members, the locally led, national satellite broadcast model is likely to resonate. The PPV model aims to do significantly more than educate: it aims to mobilize people to action. Our data indicate that the model results in a trained national cadre of experts and inspires local community members and agencies to action. The model appears to be successful both in providing information and inspiring action, an important contribution to the training field and one worthy of further examination. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No financial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper. References 1. 1Prothrow-Stith D, Spivak H. Murder is no accident: Understanding and preventing youth violence in America. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 2004;. 2. 2The National Committee for Injury Prevention and Control. Injury prevention: meeting the challenge. Am J Prev Med. 1989;5(Suppl 3):1–303. MEDLINE 3. 3In: Thorton TN, Craft CA, Dahlberg LL, Lynch BS, Baer K editor. Best practices of youth violence prevention: A sourcebook for community action. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; 2000;. 4. 4Cohen L, Swift S. The spectrum of prevention: developing a comprehensive approach to injury prevention. Inj Prev. 1999;5:203–207. MEDLINE |
CrossRef
5. 5Goehl D. Making the grade: online training as a cost effective and clinically efficient alternative in staff education. Caring. 2005;24:20–21. 6. 6Hausman AJ, Prothrow-Stith D, Spivak H. Factors influencing implementation of violence prevention education in community organizations. J Health Educ. 1995;26:314–316. 7. 7Oliver P. Bringing the crowd back in: The nonorganizational elements of social movements. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change. 1989;11:1–30. a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Atlanta, Georgia b Pediatrics, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts c Prevention Institute, Oakland, California d Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, Roxbury, Massachusetts  Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Marci Feldman Hertz, MS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Healthcare Promotion, Division of Adolescent and School Health, 4770 Buford Highway NE, MS K-12, Atlanta GA 30341.
PII: S0749-3797(07)00749-0 doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.12.007 © 2008 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | |
|
FULL TEXT