Scholarlink

Background <p>Community violence intervention (CVI) is increasingly considered an important component of comprehensive public safety infrastructure, but research and evaluation of CVI programs remain underdeveloped. There is a critical need for evaluation measures that are developed collaboratively with those most proximate to these interventions and that capture interventions' nuanced and holistic impacts. This paper presents the process and results of a practitioner-academic partnership to co-develop youth-focused CVI evaluation measures in Washington state.</p> Results <p>The process of co-developing evaluation measures involved two phases. For phase 1, we created a menu of quantitative measures (<i>n</i> = 60) for each outcome construct in a previously co-developed CVI theory of change by integrating existing measures, identified through a literature review, with insights and recommendations from CVI practitioners gathered during a workshop. For phase 2, we tailored and refined quantitative and qualitative measures with/for 7 CVI programs involved in the collaboration via individual meetings (<i>n</i> = 45 one-hour meetings over the course of 10 months, average = 6.4 meetings per program). The process of refining measures involved extensive discussion around several key considerations, including confidentiality, age appropriateness of questions, and language/jargon. After revisions, each CVI program had a customized list of quantitative and qualitative measures that fit their program and the population they served. We also created an online toolkit accompanying this paper so others may easily use, tailor, and build upon our work.</p> Conclusions <p>Our process of co-developing youth-focused CVI evaluation measures drew from existing literature while heavily prioritizing the knowledge, expertise, and capacity of CVI practitioners. This helped facilitate power sharing and responsiveness to community needs, and we believe it resulted in more appropriate and contextually relevant measures. By detailing the iterative process that we took along with the resulting evaluation measures, our intent is to encourage practitioner-academic collaboration and underscore how such partnerships can enhance the field’s understanding of CVI implementation and impacts.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Engaging practitioners and academic researchers in co-developing evaluation measures for community violence interventions

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月10日

查看全文
  • Meron Girma,
  • Julia P. Schleimer,
  • Andrew Hillen,
  • Astrid Aveledo,
  • Ayah Mustafa,
  • Deepika Nehra,
  • Dominique Davis,
  • Elaine Gonzalez,
  • Emily Westlake,
  • Esprene Liddell-Quintyn,
  • Kris Torset,
  • Kristian Jones,
  • Laura Johnson,
  • Lina R. Benson,
  • Lynniah Grayson,
  • Orlando Ames,
  • Rachel Ross,
  • Samantha Decker,
  • Taffy Hunter,
  • Tarell Harrison,
  • Tier Simon-Matthews,
  • Vivian Lyons,
  • Zaheed Lynch,
  • Ali Rowhani-Rahbar

摘要

Background

Community violence intervention (CVI) is increasingly considered an important component of comprehensive public safety infrastructure, but research and evaluation of CVI programs remain underdeveloped. There is a critical need for evaluation measures that are developed collaboratively with those most proximate to these interventions and that capture interventions' nuanced and holistic impacts. This paper presents the process and results of a practitioner-academic partnership to co-develop youth-focused CVI evaluation measures in Washington state.

Results

The process of co-developing evaluation measures involved two phases. For phase 1, we created a menu of quantitative measures (n = 60) for each outcome construct in a previously co-developed CVI theory of change by integrating existing measures, identified through a literature review, with insights and recommendations from CVI practitioners gathered during a workshop. For phase 2, we tailored and refined quantitative and qualitative measures with/for 7 CVI programs involved in the collaboration via individual meetings (n = 45 one-hour meetings over the course of 10 months, average = 6.4 meetings per program). The process of refining measures involved extensive discussion around several key considerations, including confidentiality, age appropriateness of questions, and language/jargon. After revisions, each CVI program had a customized list of quantitative and qualitative measures that fit their program and the population they served. We also created an online toolkit accompanying this paper so others may easily use, tailor, and build upon our work.

Conclusions

Our process of co-developing youth-focused CVI evaluation measures drew from existing literature while heavily prioritizing the knowledge, expertise, and capacity of CVI practitioners. This helped facilitate power sharing and responsiveness to community needs, and we believe it resulted in more appropriate and contextually relevant measures. By detailing the iterative process that we took along with the resulting evaluation measures, our intent is to encourage practitioner-academic collaboration and underscore how such partnerships can enhance the field’s understanding of CVI implementation and impacts.