Findings from the Implementation Assessment of the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention  Published on December 10, 2012  Second of three project reports  Findings from three rounds of surveys of stakeholders in National Forum cities over 15 months of implementation Jeffrey A. Butts, John Jay College, New York City Caterina Roman, Temple University, Philadelphia Kathleen A. Tomberg, John Jay College, New York City

 About 60% ages  About 50% male  About 40% Caucasian and 40% African-American  One-third worked in justice system, one-third in social services, others in education, faith-community, etc. Survey respondents were identified by each city as the best group to judge the adequacy of violence prevention:

 “Encourages city to build coalitions”  “Helps my city to improve gang suppression efforts”  “Educates public officials about youth violence prevention”  “Encourages different viewpoints” 78% 74% 69% 67% Survey respondents across all cities were generally quite positive about the role the National Forum efforts were playing in their communities.

Some of the individual indicators look quite promising in just 15 months * Data excluded for respondents answering “stayed the same”  Fewer respondents see youth violence as more serious compared with a few years ago

Some of the individual indicators look quite promising in just 15 months * Data excluded for respondents answering “stayed the same”  Fewer respondents see youth violence as more serious compared with a few years ago  Fewer see violence associated with family conflicts as becoming more serious

Some of the individual indicators look quite promising in just 15 months * Data excluded for respondents answering “stayed the same”  Fewer respondents see youth violence as more serious compared with a few years ago  Fewer see violence associated with family conflicts as becoming more serious  Opportunities for youth, including school enrollment, are improving

Rather than analyze more than 90 individual questions, researchers combined them into 15 separate “factors,” or scales made up of multiple variables. 1. Community Capacity for Prevention 2. Communication and Goal Setting 3. Organizational Collaboration 4. Opportunities for Youth 5. Law Enforcement Efficacy 6. Decrease in Perceived Violence 7. National Forum Efficacy 8. Community Leadership 9. Community Expertise 10. Multidisciplinary Focus 11. Diverse Perspectives 12. Personal Commitment 13. Agency Commitment 14. Data Driven Orientation 15. Strategic Planning

For example, “Communication and Goal Setting” is measured with seven different questions… 1. Community Capacity for Prevention 2. Communication and Goal Setting 3. Organizational Collaboration 4. Opportunities for Youth 5. Law Enforcement Efficacy 6. Decrease in Perceived Violence 7. National Forum Efficacy 8. Community Leadership 9. Community Expertise 10. Multidisciplinary Focus 11. Diverse Perspectives 12. Personal Commitment 13. Agency Commitment 14. Data Driven Orientation 15. Strategic Planning 1. We listen to everyone’s opinion. 2. We discuss whether we are working together effectively. 3. We have an effective decision-making process. 4. We work hard to establish a credible, open process. 5. We set aside our individual interests to achieve common goals. 6. We are inspired to be action-oriented. 7. Our planning process helps us to set aside our doubts and skepticism.

The factor, “Opportunities for Youth,” is measured with five different questions… 1. Community Capacity for Prevention 2. Communication and Goal Setting 3. Organizational Collaboration 4. Opportunities for Youth 5. Law Enforcement Efficacy 6. Decrease in Perceived Violence 7. National Forum Efficacy 8. Community Leadership 9. Community Expertise 10. Multidisciplinary Focus 11. Diverse Perspectives 12. Personal Commitment 13. Agency Commitment 14. Data Driven Orientation 15. Strategic Planning 1. Youth in my city know where to get help finding jobs. 2. Youth in my city know where to get educational help. 3. My city is good at getting youth connected with the services and programs they need. 4. There are plenty of good things for youth to do after school. 5. (Change in) Youth participating in supervised recreational activities.

All variables measured as 5-point Likert scales (e.g., agree/disagree, increase/decrease, etc.) Combined scores calculated for each individual on all 15 factors Scores ranged from 1.0 to 5.0., with score as the average response across all questions in that factor Higher scores always reflect more positive opinions 1. Community Capacity for Prevention 2. Communication and Goal Setting 3. Organizational Collaboration 4. Opportunities for Youth 5. Law Enforcement Efficacy 6. Decrease in Perceived Violence 7. National Forum Efficacy 8. Community Leadership 9. Community Expertise 10. Multidisciplinary Focus 11. Diverse Perspectives 12. Personal Commitment 13. Agency Commitment 14. Data Driven Orientation 15. Strategic Planning

Six factors improved significantly over 15 months of implementation Four of those improved in a linear fashion — i.e. they increased each time

Every National Forum city improved on at least 1 factor in 15 months of implementation.

Strongest performance

Conclusions  The National Forum may be generating important changes in these cities  Enhanced services and opportunities for youth  Better violence prevention concepts  Broader perspectives and coalitions  Improved perception of law enforcement  Exact connections not yet identified, but early results suggest the National Forum may help to create better partnerships and more data-driven approaches in participating communities