DESIGNING AND CONDUCTING ETIOLOGIC, INTERVENTION, AND/OR POLICY RESEARCH

At the conclusion of the needs assessment phase described in the previous section, a new community-academic board was formed to translate the needs assessment into a call for proposals from community coalitions interested in violence-prevention implementation grants targeting youth. Some of the board members had also served during the needs assessment phase, while others were new to the process. The board was purposively composed of a 2:1 community to academic member representation. The translation was done using a rigorous and systematic process. All community action recommendations identified in the community needs assessment were extracted and pasted into the appropriate level of the socioecological model (SEM) (i.e., individual, interpersonal, neighborhoods- schools, societal). Within the SEM model, the community action recommendations were conceptually organized and redundancies merged. This framework and associated community action recommendations were then embedded within the a priority programmatic framework established by the prior steering committee, including (1) prevent and intervene early with youth 0-11 years of age; (2) motivate and influence youth 12-17 years of age; and (3) educate, develop, catalyze, and convene across all youth to build capacity for violence prevention with neighborhoods, schools, and the broader community. Finally, through multiple meetings and considerable discussion, the board reached consensus about the parameters of the call for proposals.

The call for proposals required multiagency community coalitions, which may or may not involve academic partners, to develop a plan for a multifaceted youth violence prevention intervention, in accordance with the broad programmatic goals, that was culturally appropriate, feasible, and acceptable to the communit(ies) that the coalition planned to involve. The proposals had to include information about how the coalition was derived, how they planned to work together, and how they would involve youth leadership and community advisory groups. Thus, within the broad parameters of the call for proposals, each coalition had considerable autonomy to develop a locally tailored proposal. The coalitions who were selected to receive funding then were partnered with an academic leadership team who worked collaboratively with the coalition to translate their proposal into a logic model, develop measureable outcomes for their proposed activities, and provide collaborative coordination of the multiple coalitions that were selected. A separate academic team was contracted for the project to provide rigorous and independent evaluation of the agreed on outcomes.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >