Constructing “Packages” of Evidence-Based Programs to Prevent Youth Violence: Processes and Illustrative Examples From the CDC’s Youth Violence Prevention Centers

Abstract

This paper describes the strategic efforts of six National Centers of Excellence in Youth Violence Prevention (YVPC), funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to work in partnership with local communities to create comprehensive evidence-based program packages to prevent youth violence. Key components of a comprehensive evidence-based approach are defined and examples are provided from a variety of community settings (rural and urban) across the nation that illustrate attempts to respond to the unique needs of the communities while maintaining a focus on evidence-based programming and practices. At each YVPC site, the process of selecting prevention and intervention programs addressed the following factors: (1) community capacity, (2) researcher and community roles in selecting programs, (3) use of data in decision-making related to program selection, and (4) reach, resources, and dosage. We describe systemic barriers to these efforts, lessons learned, and opportunities for policy and practice. Although adopting an evidence-based comprehensive approach requires significant upfront resources and investment, it offers great potential for preventing youth violence and promoting the successful development of children, families and communities.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Youth Violence Prevention Centers: Paving the Way to Prevention

“…Kingston, Bacallao, Smokowski, Sullivan, and Sutherland (2016) review how different YVPCs have approached this issue and provide detail on the importance of not only applying the best scientific evidence, but also matching the best available evidence with a community’s strengths and needs. The importance of both the capacity and readiness of a community to adopt and implement these packages of evidence-based programs cannot be emphasized enough.…”

A Culturally Sensitive Approach to Large-Scale Prevention Studies: A Case Study of a Randomized Controlled Trial With Low-Income Latino Communities

“…In addition to monetary and personnel support, we were committed to building the agencies’ capacity outside study operations and, upon request, research team members provided on-site training in their areas of expertise. Kingston and colleagues (2016) showed that this type of reciprocity solidified the community partners’ commitment to the research and filled gaps in their existing resources that allowed them to expand their services to the community.…”

“…A culturally sensitive approach includes working with community partners in a manner that is mutually beneficial and nurtures a true partnership in which information flows both ways (Kingston et al, 2016). Although our team had local knowledge of the communities, we did not assume we were experts; rather, the team’s knowledge served as a basis for learning more about the communities from our local partners.…”

“…Capacity refers not only to the sites’ resources, but also to the experience they have with the target population, settings, and the intervention itself. We selected our focal cities and agencies because of their longstanding relationships with the local community and their experience with FAST, which made a significant difference in the uptake, speed, and quality of implementation, as has occurred in earlier studies (Kingston et al, 2016; Quinn et al, 2012), and ensured that the research process was respectful and collaborative.…”

“…Face-to-face contact with potential participants has been effective in large trials with barriers to participation (Kingston et al, 2016; Quinn et al, 2012). Several families recruited via home visits appreciated the attention.…”