Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND Community-based violence intervention (CVI) programs are considered important strategies for preventing community violence and promoting health and safety. Mixed and inconclusive results from some prior CVI evaluations, as well as our general lack of understanding about the reasons for such varied findings, may be explained in part by misalignment of program theories of change and evaluation measures. Furthermore, most prior evaluations have focused solely on deficit-based outcomes; this narrow focus is inconsistent with the premise of CVI and may fail to capture improvements in health and well-being that are on the hypothesized pathway from intervention to violence reduction. METHODS This article describes the process and results of codeveloping a theory of change for community-based youth firearm violence intervention and prevention programs in Washington state through a community-researcher partnership. We followed a multistep iterative process, involving (1) CVI program documentation review, (2) individual meetings, and (3) a day-long workshop. RESULTS The theory of change included six key domains: (1) root causes, (2) promotive factors, (3) activities, (4) intermediate outcomes, (5) longer-term outcomes, and (6) multilevel context (youth/family, staff/organizational, community, and societal). Root causes were social and structural drivers of community violence. Promotive factors were assets and resources among the community, youth/their families, and community organizations that promote health and safety. Activities were supports and services the program provided to youth and their families, staff, and, potentially, the broader community. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes were the changes among youth, their families, staff, and the community that resulted from program activities. Intermediate outcomes may be felt within 6 months to 1 year, and longer-term outcomes may be felt after 1 to 2 years and beyond. CONCLUSION The theory of change we codeveloped provides a common lens to conceptualize, compare, and evaluate CVI programs in Washington state and may support more rigorous and equity-centered evaluations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Diagnostic Test/Criteria; Level V.
Schleimer et al. (Thu,) studied this question.