1. Community mobilization literature review Aim4Peace
KU Work Group Team on Community Youth Development and Prevention
January 17, 2013

2. Community mobilization goals
Report Recommendations for Program Implementation and Evaluation (2011)
Maximize staff capacity
Consider hiring violence prevention interrupters, in addition to SIW
Maintain appropriate levels of street outreach staff
Identify at least five community changes sought within each of the 10 identified sectors
Facilitate community changes to enhance access to social services to further support participants’ needs
Continue to broker collaborations to support both the mobilization and outreach components of the program.

3. Program Logic Model Program Infrastructure Aim4Peace Staff
Program Inputs and Resources
Program Infrastructure
Aim4Peace Staff
Aim4Peace Street Intervention Volunteers
Neighborhood Action Teams
Health Department
Program Partners
Community Partners and Volunteers
Faith-based partners and volunteers
Law Enforcement
Federal and local funders
CeaseFire - national technical assistance
KU Work Group evaluation partners
Program Activities/Implementation
Outreach
Street and hospital outreach to high-risk individuals
Conflict mediation for participants and residents
Violence prevention programs for high-risk youth
Mobilization
Anti-violence community change activities
Faith-based collaboration
Law enforcement partnerships
Public education
Outputs/Results
Individual & Relationship
# high-risk participants engaged
# and duration of outreach worker contacts
# conflicts mediated
# of mediation referrals
# and type of services to participants
% participant goals attained
Community & Societal
# and type of program, policy, and practice changes
# and type of services to community residents and groups
# and type of community violence prevention partnerships
Outcomes
Short-Term & Intermediate
Increased client knowledge and skills for conflict mediation
Positive changes in client attitudes & beliefs about violence
Change in resident attitudes and perceptions of violence
Decrease in client risk factors for violence
Longer-Term Impact
Reduced firearm homicides in target area
Reduced firearm aggravated assaults in target area

4. Search methods Inclusion Criteria
Community mobilization and empowerment
Community mobilization and empowerment to target violence
Violence prevention initiatives
Violence prevention frameworks
Exclusion Criteria
No focus on violence prevention
No focus on community mobilization and/or empowerment
Limitations
Youth violence prevention programs
Limited literature focusing on reducing violence among adults
Number of studies included in this review: 26

5. Key terms and results

6. Concept of Community mobilization
Defined:
“..all sectors of the population in a community-wide effort to address a health, social or environmental issue” (Meyer et al., 2008).
“…people coming together to take action on an issue…” (Thompson et al. 2008).
“…individuals taking action organized around specific community issues” (Kim-Ju et al., 2008).
Creating “social change by building awareness and empowering community members to take charge of their own health thought engaging in a collective, interactive process” (Tedrow et al., 2011).
Why is Community Mobilization important?
Critical determinant to success, as it provides the framework to encourage participation, cooperation, and collaboration for the ‘common good’ (Kim-Ju et al., 2008).
Creates bonds, bridges, and links social capital (Payne & Williams, 2008).
Community activation
Importance of social capital = building quality and quantity of interactions between community members
Effects of neighborhood presence (less likely to want to do harm)

7. What makes mobilization most effective?
Community cohesion and capacity (David-Ferdon & Hammond, 2008; Fawcett et al., 1995)
Capacity being “a necessary condition for the development, implementation, and maintenance of effective, community-based health promotion and disease prevention programs” (O’Neill et al., 2008).
Community’s willingness to support prevention programs is contingent on trust
“Photo-op community development” (O’Neil et al., 2008).
Ability to implement social power (Speer & Hughey, 1995)
Bargaining of available resources for/against targets
Ability to create/minimize barriers to participation
Ability to influence shared consciousness
Photo-op community development depletes trust, as the focus is on “looking good”; doesn’t focus on solving critical issues within the community

8. What makes mobilization most effective?
Gaining community capacity: San Diego Mid-City Community Advocacy Network and USC’s Academic Center on Excellence on Youth Violence Prevention (O’Neill et al., 2008)
Diverse membership
Identified barriers of establishing community capacity
Time, language, culture, economics
Relationship building in the community requires time
Gaining community engagement
Growing leadership capacity through leadership development activities
Emphasized collective approaches
Hired staff within the community
Time met needs of service providers, not residents
English-speaking staff
Culture: i.e. gender roles in different cultures, concepts of leadership and advocacy
Economics: difficult to focus on attending a meeting to address needs of others when your own basic needs aren’t being met in your community
Gaining community engagement via community involvement
Leadership activities, collective approaches vs. hierarchical approaches (institutional)

9. Outcomes of community mobilization
Increased in Social Capital through re-stabilization of communities
Renewing social networks among residents (bonding),
Asset Mapping
Neighbor-to-neighbor interaction opportunities
Identification of who can offer what to the community (i.e. Individual Capacities Survey)
Establishing connections between residents and opportunities, organizations, and services in the extended community (bridging and linking)
Without mobilization, social capital decreases as trust and willingness to engage in the effort is diminished
Payne & Williams, 2008

10. Outcomes of community mobilization
Established community empowerment
“…neighborhood residents…given wide latitude to devise their own strategy for achieving…mobilization goals” (Cheadle et al., 2001).
“…the process of gaining influence over conditions that matter top people who share neighborhoods, workplaces, experiences, or concerns (Fawcett et al., 1995).
“…focuses attention on the structures and practices of both organizations and collaborative partnerships with organizational traits” (Griffith et al., 2008).

11. Outcomes of community mobilization
Community empowerment on three dimensions:
Person/group (intraorganizational),
Environmental (interorganizational),
Empowerment capacity/outcome (extraorganizational) (Fawcett et al., 1995, Griffith et al., 1995).
From A4P initiative
Intraorganizational = SIW
Interorganizational = Community residents (fill the gap when SIW aren’t present with participants)
Extraorganizational = New policies that may result in the generation of more resources, etc.

12. Griffith et al., (2008). Flint, Michigan’s Youth Violence Prevention Center model of organizational empowerment to promote youth violence prevention.

13. Ecological level of community mobilization; prompt to think about ecological levels of violence prevention and how we can focus on identifying mobilization strategies for each level
Examples: Individual (flooding out opportunities to engage in negative behaviors)
Block (Social capital though positive neighbor-to-neighbor interaction)
Physical environment (Utilize vacant lots)

14. Social-Ecological Levels
Individual
The first level identifies biological and personal history factors that increase the likelihood of becoming a victim or perpetrator of violence. Some of these factors are age, education, income, substance use, or history of abuse.  Prevention strategies at this level are often designed to promote attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that ultimately prevent violence. Specific approaches may include education and life skills training.
Relationship
The second level examines close relationships that may increase the risk of experiencing violence as a victim or perpetrator. A person's closest social circle-peers, partners and family members-influences their behavior and contributes to their range of experience.  Prevention strategies at this level may include mentoring and peer programs designed to reduce conflict, foster problem solving skills, and promote healthy relationships.
Community
The third level explores the settings, such as schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods, in which social relationships occur and seeks to identify the characteristics of these settings that are associated with becoming victims or perpetrators of violence.  Prevention strategies at this level are typically designed to impact the climate, processes, and policies in a given system. Social norm and social marketing campaigns are often used to foster community climates that promote healthy relationships.
Societal
The fourth level looks at the broad societal factors that help create a climate in which violence is encouraged or inhibited. These factors include social and cultural norms. Other large societal factors include the health, economic, educational and social policies that help to maintain economic or social inequalities between groups in society.
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. (2009, September 9). The social-ecological model: A framework for prevention. Retrieved on September 6, 2012 from

15. Intervention Components
The Ethnic Studies Model
(Sobredo et al., 2008)
API Center
(Miao et al., 2011)
Fresh Start
(Hernandez-Cordero et al., 2011)
Ivanhoe Neighborhood Council Youth Project
(Watson-Thompson et al., 2008)
CSPYV
(Meyer et al. 2008)
East Bay Chinese Youth Council
(Kim-Ju et al., 2008)
Providing Information and Enhancing Skills
Working meetings (university faculty, interns, HS)
Multi-media presentation of Ethnic Studies process
Media coverage
Creating good public relations
Monthly presentations on findings of risk and protective factors; project oriented committee meetings
Visioning exercises
Indicated outcomes and goals
“Mobilizer Power Hour”
Development of a community mobilization plan
Strategic planning workshops
Training for neighborhood residents and youth to serve on boards
Youth peer-support
Utilizing homicides maps to show trends
Collaborating with youth to gain information
Collaborating to develop strategies to reduce crime
Research on community involvement
Bilingual tutorial and counseling program
Organizational meetings
Monthly film Asian festival
Modifying Access, Barriers and Opportunities
Adapted HS curriculum
Tutoring and mentoring program to improve academic performance
College training workshops (youth and parents)
Positive parent-teacher/administration interaction
Include various forms of participation opportunities (i.e. events, research opportunities)
Allow people to map out their own avenues for engagement
Community invited to training programs
Family strengthening activities
Reading program for parent-child bonding
Fundraising
Opportunities to provide feedback on the mobilization plan
Establishing youth block leaders
Opportunities for youth and block leaders to plan and implement mobilization efforts
Common Ground program to gain youth perspective
Physical changes to the environment to decrease out-of-sight activities
Focus groups to determine how university can assist efforts
Opportunity to voice concerns
Changing the Consequences
Annual community celebration
Sustainability from outside grants
Gaining social capital through open participation
Increased coalition activities
Increased coordination of outdoor events (utilizing empty space)
“Greening” spaces
Sustainability from partner collaborators
Incentives for assisting in community changes
Community members addressing policy change through use of maps
Accountability/evaluation process
10-week summer employment program for youth (26 hours per week)
Enhancing Services and Supports
Course at high school level
Bridged university resources and community needs
HS providing community resources to university
Tutoring available to HS students
Community outreach to provide service (providing jobs)
Community feedback regarding project led to adaptations to program evaluation
Establishing mentors and mentoring organizational relationships for ongoing social learning
Community Mobilization Plan
Increased sector support
Resources provided by Coalition partners
Youth Council
Summer programming (i.e. athletic leagues)
Organization community internship program
Hiring a community mobilizer to enhance support
Establishing collaborative partnerships
Utilizing project organizers
Summer programming
Weekly after-school programming
Technical support (i.e. ODSS documentation)
Increased data surveillance
Enhanced student learning through partner organizations
Community Scholars
Health survey/referral program
Community school for Chinese immigrant newcomers
Job referral program
Community clean-up
Legal aid
Draft counseling
Modifying Policies and Broader Systems
Expanding Ethnic Studies to other schools
Establishment of the Collaborative Learning Center
Members met with CDC to gain training on local policies
Mobilization plan revised to include policy work
Policies for youth and adults to serve as committee co-chairs
Youth-led traffic study
Neighborhood petitions
Changes in state liquor licensing practices
Behavioral Strategies in gaining Community Mobilization through community accomplishments

16. Aim4Peace accomplishments
NEXT STEPS/FUTURE DISCUSSIONS
Sense-making
Implementing accountability
Future strategies to gain an increase in mobilization across sectors in 2013
CC in 2011 = 28
54% included residents
CC in 2012* = 34
68% included residents
Maintain further community residents’ involvement in the Aim4Peace initiative
May look at strategies that can be utilized to gain more community involvement to assist Aim4Peace in increasing accomplishments in 2013
How?
Future “Sense-making” meetings/discussions to address accountability (i.e. Peace Contracts)
*2012 AR not currently available

17. Preventing gun violence and homicide with the help of communication strategies
Best practices from successful violence prevention interventions across the US
Jomella will discuss
Prepared by: Priya Vanchy

18. Aim of Examining Health Communication Strategies
To recognize the communication components of successful violence prevention interventions
To consider our own goals and adapt these components to suit our audience

19. Designing a health communication strategy
Analysis of the situation
Communication strategy
Management considerations
Evaluation- Tracking and progress and evaluating impact

20. Theoretical basis for successful communication interventions
Levels of influence and intervention
ABCs that control behavior
A unifying framework for applying behavioral theory to violence/injury prevention
For introduction to the slide pls read 2 paragraphs under the sub heading ‘role of theory in behavior change’ -
For levels of Influence and intervention pls read 2 paragraphs under the same sub-heading in
For ABCs of behavior change pls read the paragraph 2,3 under ‘Applied behavioral analysis’ -
For unifying framework pls read the 5 paragraphs under the sub-heading ‘Integrating models at the individual level’ -

21. Levels of influence and intervention for Health Communications
Explain about the levels of communication namely interpersonal, intrapersonal and community level and briefly inform that each level of influence has a number of theoretical models and give examples

22. The principles of the unifying framework
Intentions
Environmental barriers
Outcome expectancies (or attitude)
Social norms
Self-standards
Emotional reactions
Self-efficacy
Explain in detail about the unified principles and what Fishbein proposed as the conditions for a person to adopt a favorable behavior from -

23. Further summary of Health communication efforts

24. Boston, Massachusetts
Intervention: Boston Gun reduction program and Barron Assessment and Counseling Center Prevention: Violence prevention curriculum and conflict resolution Public Education campaign: Hands without guns and Words not weapons Interpersonal through counseling; violence prevention curriculum
The Adolescent Wellness Program is a multiinstitutional, community-based initiative designed
to reduce the incidence of interpersonal violence
among adolescents, as well as the social and
medical hazards associated with that violence. The
major intervention used to conduct this project is a
violence prevention curriculum designed for adolescents that focuses on conflict resolution. The program has also developed a resource called Identification and Prevention of youth violence : A protocol package for healthcare providers. The protocol guides providers in addressing and responding to young patients at high risk of engaging in violent behavior. It is currently used in several Boston neighborhood health care centers.
Begun in 1987 The Baron Assessment and counseling center is an intervention service for elementary, middle and high school students found carrying weapons on school property. At the center, they receive academic, psychological and social assessments as well as crisis intervention counseling.

25. Richmond, California
Intervention: The Richmond Comprehensive Homicide Initiative Prevention: Homicides Public education campaign: D.A.R.E officers and volunteers Interpersonal communication; middle school mentoring curriculum; targeted communication to at-risk individuals
Pls read

26. Chicago, Illinois
Intervention: Chicago partnership for the Prevention of violence Prevention: STOP Public education campaign: Against handgun violence Materials- monograph, audiotape, counseling tip sheet, bibliography, brochures, posters Intrapersonal communication
STOP- Steps to prevent Firearm injury – is a collaborative effort of the Center to prevent Handgun violence and the American Academy of Pediatrics. It is the first national education program designed for pediatricians to use when counseling parents on the risks of keeping a gun in the home as well as the dangers guns pose to the community. Materials include 1) a monograph addressing the scope and circumstances of gun injuries and deaths affecting children and teens, 2) an audiotape that models dialog between pediatricians and parents, 3) a counseling tip sheet for quick reference, 4) a bibliography for further reading, 5) brochures providing facts and prevention steps, 6) posters for offices and waiting rooms

27. Intervention: The Little Village Gang violence reduction project in Chicago Prevention: Youth at risk of joining gangs and those who are already members of gangs Public education: community mobilization and outreach Intrapersonal communication; peer-peer education
The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project (GVRP) was a comprehensive, community-wide program designed to reduce serious violence in Chicago’s gang-ridden Little Village neighborhood. The main goal of the GVRP was to reduce the extremely high level of serious gang violence, first at the individual youth gang member level, and then at the aggregate (especially gang and community) level.  The foundation of the GVRP was the Comprehensive Gang Model (also known as the Comprehensive Community-Wide Gang Program Model, the Comprehensive Gang Prevention and Intervention Model, and the Spergel Model). The model assumes gang violence is a product of social disorganization and presumes gangs become chronic and serious problems in communities where key organizations are inadequately integrated and where there are insufficient resources to target gang-involved youth. To address these problems, the Comprehensive Gang Model calls for community institutions—including law enforcement, social welfare agencies, and grassroots organizations—to work together using a more integrated, team-oriented approach. The model identifies five core elements (or strategies) communities should incorporate into their programs to achieve successful outcomes:Community mobilization. Local citizens and organizations are involved in a common enterprise. The program should include local police officers, probation officers, community youth workers, church groups, boys and girls clubs, and several local residents who work as a team to understand gang structures and provide social intervention and social opportunities whenever possible.
Social intervention. The program should reach out to youths unable to connect with legitimate social institutions. A youth, the gang structure, and the environmental resources must be taken into account before the youth is provided with crisis counseling, family counseling, or referral to services such as drug treatment, jobs, training, educational programs, or recreation.
Provision of social opportunities. Youths at different points in their lives need different things. Older gang members may be ready to secure a legitimate job and need training and education to do so. Younger youths at risk of becoming gang members may need alternative schools or family counseling. The program should provide individualized services for each youth based on his or her needs.
Suppression. This not only consists of surveillance, arrest, probation, and imprisonment to stop violent behavior, but also involves greater communication between agency service providers and control providers. All providers jointly decide what happens to a youth when trouble arises or when it is about to.
Organizational change and development of local agencies and groups. All workers need to work closely with one another and collaborate. Former gang members working as community youth workers need to be given as much respect as police officers in the program. Each group can provide important information for the program that the other may not be able to obtain.
The Comprehensive Gang Model was originally developed in six sites throughout the country. From 1992 through 1995, the Chicago Police Department ran the GVRP in Little Village. In 1994, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention also launched a series of 4- and 5-year demonstration projects, testing the model in five different cities: Bloomington–Normal, Illinois; Mesa, Arizona; Tucson, Arizona; Riverside, California; and San Antonio, Texas. The Little Village community, a 5 ½-square-mile area southwest of Chicago’s central business district, was selected because it was one of the most chronically violent gang areas in the city. At the time the GVRP was implemented, the community of 100,000 was 90 percent Mexican or Mexican American, and residents were primarily lower income and working class families. Two major gang constellations existed in the Little Village community: the Latin Kings and the Two-Six. From 1989 to 1992, members from these gangs accounted for 75 percent of all gang-motivated homicides, aggravated batteries, and aggravated assaults in Little Village. The Latin Kings were the more violent and criminal group, while the Two-Six engaged more in property offenses. Gang youth ages 17 to 24 were primarily targeted for services because they accounted for 70 percent of serious gang violence. The program later began to target youth ages 12 to 27. The project involved a collaboration of personnel from numerous agencies, including two full-time tactical officers, a part-time neighborhood relations sergeant, and a part-time clerical officer from the Chicago Police Department; three full-time adult probation officers; a part-time staff community organizer; and four full-time community youth workers, including a field supervisor who worked under the direction of the project coordinator. Community youth workers were mainly former gang members from the area. An independent community group, the Neighbors Against Gang Violence, was also formed and became affiliated with the project. Project team members were able to fulfill their organizational missions while targeting hard-core gang youth using a collaborative approach. For example, tactical officers provided information to other project members about gang incidents, and even referred gang members to community youth workers for services. On occasion, community youth workers provided information to police about youth involved in violent gang incidents. They also helped gang members meet probation appointments and requirements. Additionally, probation officers provided information about criminal activities. The community organizer served as a liaison between Little Village residents and the project team. There was no formal system for referring gang members to the GVRP. Community youth workers in the two gang areas were the main source of program youth contact for inclusion in the program and referral to agency services. Other members of the team, particularly police, often confirmed the appropriateness of particular gang members to be targeted. The GVRP focused on integrating the five components of the Comprehensive Gang Model. Targeted youth were provided with economic and social opportunities for employment and referrals to social interventions. Suppression efforts by project team members were also accomplished. Efforts to mobilize the community and encourage organizational change and development were not as successful.  The social interventions included a variety of services provided to gang members, such as remedial education, recreational activities (e.g., softball games involving both gangs), counseling in homes and on the streets, crisis counseling, and referral to drug treatment and mental health services. Community youth workers were responsible for reaching out, contacting, and providing a range of limited but intensive services to youth gang members.  Economic and social opportunities were provided through access to jobs and job training, as well as educational resources. At the time the GVRP was implemented, the effects of an expanding economy helped provide opportunities for targeted youth. The suppression component (i.e., socialized suppression) was implemented through information gathering, gang member monitoring, and criminal activity arrests. Project team members worked collaboratively to implement this component of the model. For example, project police and probation officers were involved in a variety of social problem-solving and community-oriented gang prevention and control efforts, which increased their knowledge of gang problems and understanding of which youth to target for suppression. Community youth workers also functioned as control agents and service providers. There was constant communication among project team members about new and useful information on gang violence and targeted youth. The GVRP encountered difficulties with the community mobilization as well as the organizational change and development components of the Comprehensive Gang Model. The project developed primarily at the project team level and remained largely independent; it was not integrated into larger agency operations. In addition, a broad-based steering committee was never formed, making the community mobilization process hard to achieve at the broader community level. There was a lack of leadership in the development of a community mobilized approach to the gang problem, and the process was only partially achieved at the grassroots level.Evaluation Methodology:Study 1 The Little Village Gang Violence Reduction Project (GVRP) was evaluated by Spergel and colleagues (2003) using a quasi-experimental design. The evaluation collected and analyzed data on 493 youths who were either program youths (195), quasi-program youths who received some services (90), or youths who were part of a comparison group that did not receive services (208). Service contact was the feature distinguishing the quasi-program from comparison youth. Evaluators discovered that some gang members who were selected to be part of the comparison group received some sort of service contact. These members became the quasi-program group.  In all the three samples, youth from two gangs, the Latin Kings and Two-Six, are similarly represented. There were no significant differences between the groups in demographic characteristics. The sample was almost entirely male, with no more than four females included in each group. The ethnicity of participants in the program, quasi-program, and comparison groups was predominately Latino, mainly Mexican American. Only 4.2 percent of the program group was of European origin, with no Asian or African American individuals. Only 2.3 percent of the quasi-program group was non-Latino, while the comparison group was 11.5 percent non-Latino. Age distribution was almost identical for all three groups. The average age was years for program youth, years for quasi-program youth, and years for comparison youth. Data collection included criminal history records and aggregate level police arrest data. Police arrests were aggregated into seven general categories: (1) total arrests; (2) arrests for serious violence offenses (homicide, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, and armed robbery); (3) arrests for all violence offenses (including misdemeanors), such as battery, simple assault, intimidation, and weapons possession; (4) arrests for property offenses; (5) arrests for drug offenses; (6) arrests for additional offenses that were characteristic of police suppression efforts, such as disorderly conduct, mob action, and unlawful assembly; and (7) arrests for other offenses—including status offenses but excluding probation and parole violations.  Levels of arrests were established for each category of arrests to control for regression effects. Changes in youths’ police arrest histories were compared between the 4 ½-year pre-program period (Time I) and the 4 ½-year program period (Time II). There were two different units of analysis: change in the level or frequency of arrest, and change in the number of youths who saw any improvement or deterioration in arrests, regardless of level of change. The data was analyzed using a general linear model statistical procedure (analysis of variance). Community surveys were also conducted in Little Village and the comparison community of Pilsen to determine if the Little Village community perceived a change in the gang problem that could be associated with the GVRP. Data was collected from 195 residents and 114 organizations in the two communities at two interview periods, 2 years apart. (

28. Kansas City
Intervention: Kansas City Weed and Seed Program Prevention: Reduce homicide through gun interception Public education: community and religious leaders Community-level; meetings and discussions
Operation Weed and Seed is a program that aims to prevent, control, and reduce violent crime, drug abuse, and gang activity in targeted high-crime neighborhoods across the country. Weed and Seed sites range in size from several neighborhood blocks to 15 square miles.
Operation Weed and Seed is a U.S. Department of Justice initiative which began in 1991 when three pilot sites were selected to implement the strategy, including Kansas City as one of the original sites. Currently there are approximately 300 sites officially recognized.
Operation Weed and Seed is a multi-agency strategy that "weeds out" violent crime, gang activity, drug use, and drug trafficking in targeted high crime neighborhoods and "seeds" the target area by restoring these neighborhoods through social and economic revitalization. The Weed and Seed strategy recognizes the importance of linking and integrating Federal, State, and local law enforcement and criminal justice efforts with Federal, State, and local social services, the private sector and community efforts to maximize the impact of existing programs and resources. It also recognizes that community involvement is of paramount importance. Community residents must be empowered to assist in solving problems in their neighborhoods. In addition, the private sector is a pivotal partner in the Weed and Seed strategy.
The steps taken to implement a Weed and Seed strategy are to (1) organize a Steering Committee; (2) select a target neighborhood; (3) conduct a needs assessment; (4) mobilize resources; (5) identify goals and objectives; and (6) develop an implementation schedule.
The strategy involves a two-pronged approach. First, law enforcement agencies and prosecutors cooperate in "weeding out" criminals who participate in violent crime and drug abuse, attempting to prevent their return to the targeted area as part of the program. Second, "seeding" brings a variety of human services to the area encompassing crime prevention, intervention, treatment, and neighborhood revitalization. A community-oriented policing component bridges the weeding and seeding aspects of the program. Officers obtain helpful information from area residents for weeding efforts while they aid residents in obtaining information about community revitalization and seeding resources.  The Western District of Missouri has one officially recognized site in the Mid-City Neighborhood of St. Joseph, Mo. We also have two developing sites in the Blue Hills neighborhood of Kansas City and teh Englewood area of Independence.
At each site, the United States Attorney plays a central role in organizing the Steering Committee and bringing together the communities with the other Weed and Seed participants. The United States Attorney also facilitates coordination of federal, state, and local law enforcement efforts. Through cooperation, sites can effectively use federal law in weeding strategies and mobilize resources for seeding programs from a variety of federal agencies.

29. Lessons learned Multi-component, multi-channel campaigns
A mix of voices to spread campaign messages
Simple steps to violence prevention
Encouraging the confidence to make change
Benefits emphasized over risks
Success of fear appeals is dependant on amount of efficacy information
Addressing and reducing constraints/barriers to action
Opinion leaders as gatekeepers to attitude and behavior change
Consideration of mediating factors in message design
For detailed explanations of these bullet points pls read the paragraph under the sub-heading ‘Guidelines for injury prevention campaigns’ in

30. Summary The steps to designing a health communication strategy
The theoretical basis for communication interventions
Illustrations of successful violence prevention initiatives
Lessons learned
Pls summarize briefly

31. Further summary of community mobilization efforts

32. An Ethnic Studies Model of Community Mobilization (Sacramento, CA) To address academic and violence issues
Clear Mission and Goal
Acceptance of and Participation from Organizations
Morale and Team Building
Rewarding efforts of team
Needs and Assets Assessment
“Walk-the-Block” = implementation of community surveys
Collaborative effort
Included community events (i.e. pancake feed, health fair, community forum)
Community Outreach
Opportunity for welcoming and empowering community
Media Outreach (to gain support of extended community)
Training Sessions
Evaluation
Sustainability (funding)

33. Fresh Start (New York, NY) To promote youth development and prevent violence
Individual Activities
Targeted towards at risk and potential leaders
Family Level Activities
Strengthening, enrichment
Block Level Activities
Increasing protective factors in targeted “hot spot”
Increasing programming and leadership opportunities for residents
Organizational Level Activities
Adaption of existing programs and services that do not serve the target population
Allows for outreach to new members
Environmental Level Activities
Use of isolated spaces

34. API Center (Hawaii) Essential elements for community engagement for
API Center (Hawaii) Essential elements for community engagement for youth violence prevention
Common Vision
Understand the problems correlated with violence
Inclusivity
Environment that allows for safe and inclusive planning, implementation, and evaluation of EBPs (i.e. Cease Fire) between organization and community members
Aids in the development of social capital and collective efficacy
Collaboration
To build hope and efficacy
Normalize collaborative practices
Successful planning through dealing constructively/compassionately with differences
Fuels development of further initiatives
Builds hope, skill, and confidence to take on larger responsibilities
Builds bridges with other segments of the community
Leadership and Capacity Building
To maintain growth and momentum
Capacity = critical component to successful community change efforts
Social Learning
Allows members to draw lessons learned through the work

35. Ivanhoe Neighborhood Council Youth Project (KCMO) Framework for Community Mobilization and Change Efforts
Community Assessment and Collaborative Planning
Basic analysis of neighborhood data, assets, and challenges
Used information to identify broad goals (i.e. increased youth programs and services)
Coordinated roles, responsibilities, and resources to support collaborative aciton
Strategic planning workshop
Created vision and mission
Strategic Plan development over one year
Focus group (consisted of youth = targeted population)
Formed Ivanhoe Youth Council
Developed objectives, strategies, and action plans

36. Ivanhoe Neighborhood Council Youth Project (KCMO) Framework for Community Mobilization and Change Efforts
Implementing Targeted Action
Implementation of strategic plans and facilitated bottom-up approach
Leadership development/governance
Training provided to serve as community chairs and block contacts
Paid committee mobilizer = support youth development through targeted changes (broadly)
Brokering relationships to work as project organizers
Neighborhood youth mobilization opportunities

37. Ivanhoe Neighborhood Council Youth Project (KCMO) Framework for Community Mobilization and Change Efforts
Changing Community Conditions and Systems
Community Changes
Program Changes/New programs
Junior Block Captain, Front Porch Alliance
Policy Changes
Traffic-calming device in areas experiencing safety issues
Partnership between Youth Council and City Public Safety Department
Practice Changes
Development of the Ivanhoe Youth Council
Changes/interventions parallel to community needs

38. Ivanhoe Neighborhood Council Youth Project (KCMO) Framework for Community Mobilization and Change Efforts
Achieving Widespread Behavior Change and Improvements in Population-Level Outcomes
Improved behavior, associated protective factors, and youth related outcomes
Youth engagement, involvement of non-parent adults, decreased youth violence
Peer support, supervised after-school activities, community organization
Providing incentives for help in facilitating a community change
Sustainability
Leveraging support staff form partners
Grant funding

39. references
Aldoory, L., Bonzo, S. (2005). Using Communication Theory in Injury Prevention Campaigns. Injury Prevention, (11)5,
Allison, K., Edmonds, T., Wilson, K., Farrell, A. (2011). Connecting Youth Violence Prevention, Positive Youth Development, and Community Mobilization. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48, 8-20.
Becker, T., Guerra, N. (2011). Mobilizing Communities to Implement Evidence-Based Practices in Youth Violence Prevention: The State of the Art. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48,
Brown, E., Hawkins, J., Arthur, M., Abbott, R., Van Horn, M. (2007). Multilevel Analysis of a Measure of Community Prevention Collaboration. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41,
Cheadle, A., Wagner, E., Walls, M., Diehr, P., Bell, M., Anderman, C., McBride, C., Cantalano, R., Pettigrew, E., Simmons, R., Neckerman, H. (2001). The Effect of Neighborhood-Based Community Organizing: Results from the Seattle Minority Youth Health Project. Health Services Research, (36)4,
David-Ferdon, C., Hammond, R. (2008). Community Mobilization to prevent Youth Violence and to Create Safer Communities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, (34)3S, S1-S2.
Fawcett, S., Paine-Andrews, A., Francisco, V., Schultz, J., Richter, K., Lewis, R….Lopez, C. (1995). Using Empowerment Theory in Collaborative Partnerships for Community Health and Development. American Journal of Community Psychology, (23)5,
Gielen, A. C., Sleet, D. (2003). Application of Behavior-Change Theories and Methods to Injury Prevention. Epidemiologic Reviews (25)1,
Goldstein, A., Glick, B., Reiner, S., Zimmerman, D., Coultry, T. (1987). Aggression Replacement Training: A Comprehensive Intervention for Aggressive Youth. Psychology in the Schools, (25)2,
Griffith, D., Allen, J., Zimmerman, M., Morrel-Samuels, S., Reischl, T., Cohen, S., Campbell, K. (2008). Organizational Empowerment in Community Mobilization to Address Youth Violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, (34)3S, S89-S99.
Hernandez-Cordero, L., Ortiz, A., Trinidad, T., Link, B. (2011). Fresh Start: A Multilevel Community Mobilization Plan to Promote Youth Development and Prevent Violence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48,
Kim-Ju, G., Mark, G., Cohen, R., Garcia-Santiago, O., Nguyen, P. (2008). Community Mobilization and Its Application to Youth Violence Prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, (34)3S, S5-S12.

40. references
Macdonald, G. (2002). Violence and Health: The Ultimate Public Health Challenge. Health Promotion International, (17)4,
Meyer, A., Cohen, R., Edmonds, T., Masho, S. (2008). Developing a Comprehensive Approach to Youth Violence Prevention in a Small City. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, (34)3S, S13-S20.
Miao, T., Umemoto, K., Gonda, D., Hishinuma, E. (2011). Essential Elements for Community Engagement in Evidence-Based Youth Violence Prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48,
O’Neil, K., Williams, K., Reznik, V. (2008). Engaging Latino Residents to Build a Healthier Community in Mid-City San Diego. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, (34)3S, S36- S41.
Payne, P., Williams, K. (2008). Building Social Capital Through Neighborhood Mobilization: Challenges and Lessons Learned. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, (34)3S, S42- S47.
Population Communication Services: John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for Communication Programs. A Field Guide to Designing a Health Communication Strategy: A Resource for Health Communication Professionals.
Sobredo, J., Kim-Ju, G., Figueroa, J., Mark, G., Fabionar, J. (2008). An Ethnic Studies Model of Community Mobilization: Collaborative Partnership with a High-Risk Public High School. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, (34)3S, S82-S88.
Speer, P., Christens, B. (2011). Local Community Organizing and Change: Altering Policy in the Housing Community Development System in Kansas City. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 22,
Speer, P., Hughey, J. (1995). Community Organizing: An Ecological Route to Empowerment and Power. American Journal of Community Psychology, (23)5,
Spergel I., Grossman, S. (1997). The Little Village Project: A Community Approach to the Gang Problem. Social Work, (42)5,
Tedrow, V., Zelaya, C., Kennedy, C., Morin, S., Khumalo-Sakutukwa, G., Sweat, M., Celentano, D. (2011). No “Magic Bullet”: Exploring Community Mobilization Strategies Used in a Multi-site Community Based Randomized Controlled Trial: Project Accept (HPTN 043).
U.S Department of Justice. (1996). Reducing Youth Gun Violence: An Overview of Programs and Initiatives. Retrieved from
U.S. Department of Justice. (1997). Strategies for Reducing Homicide: The Comprehensive Homicide Initiative in Richmond, California. Retrieved from
Watson-Thompson, J., Fawcett, S., Schultz, J. (2008). A Framework for Community Mobilization to Promote Healthy Youth Development. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, (34)3S, S72-S81.