TOWARD A LIFETIME COMMITMENT TO VIOLENCE PREVENTION IN ALAMEDA COUNTY: BACKGROUND AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS: SYNOPSIS

The Need for a Unified, Strategic Violence Prevention Approach

Alameda County can be a wonderful place to live. It is an energetic, diverse, creative county. However, like many other counties in the state and nation, especially those with large urban, low-income populations, Alameda County faces serious violence problems. Violence is complex, and as such, requires a comprehensive solution.

As a step towards preventing violence throughout Alameda County, Supervisory Nate Miley commissioned a preliminary report to take a broad initial look at the efforts in the county and, in light of relevant best practices throughout the United States, to recommend an overall direction and approach. This document is a synopsis of that report. To complete the report, meetings were held and interviews were conducted with approximately fifty key local government officials, state officials, and community members, and local data and documents were reviewed as well as relevant materials from research throughout the nation. The span is county wide and the focus is on all types of violence. It is envisioned that the report is the first part of a continuing process and, as such, highlights the vital importance of an overall Alameda countywide strategy to reduce violence. This report and this synopsis are intended as working documents that will be shaped and revised by the violence prevention advisory board. This synopsis details the major findings of the information gathering process and delineates a set of recommendations.

The preliminary recommendations delineated in this document are not about "fixing the system"; rather, they are about laying the initial groundwork to create a unified violence prevention system that will work for agencies and departments, and more importantly, for the people who call Alameda County home. These recommendations form the foundation of an overdue approach that will build accountability by clarifying where each stakeholder fits. Success depends on long-term commitment and leadership, but strategy is also a critical ingredient.

Findings

Interviews repeatedly confirmed the lack of a comprehensive approach to violence prevention in Alameda County and described the elements that were deficient. These include: 1) absence of leadership, 2) lack of accountability, 3) no mechanism for coordination and communication, and 4) limited understanding about violence prevention.

First, there has been an absence of leadership on the issue of violence prevention. There is no identifiable person or department that has overall responsibility for developing strategy, gathering data and measuring the effectiveness of violence prevention efforts in Alameda County.

Second, there is a lack of accountability for violence prevention outcomes. There is a notion that "everyone" is responsible for violence prevention in Alameda County, which contributes to a lack of initiative, coordination, accountability and effectiveness. County departments are working on problems that contribute to violence prevention, but not systematically and not necessarily together. Without a clear expectation of violence prevention outcomes from all stakeholders, as well as rewards for achieving them and consequences for not achieving them, there is no guarantee that violence prevention efforts will be prioritized or maximized

Third, there is little coordination and no regular venue where such coordination might appropriately take place. This results in poor linkage of services, little sharing of data and information, and little opportunity for maximizing the effectiveness of collaboration across County departments and services, or between county and city governments. There is no mechanism for systematically connecting departments engaged in work that could reduce or prevent violence with community members and organizations that are doing work on violence prevention. A consistent issue among community groups was the difficulty in obtaining data and information.

Fourth, while there was a significant understanding of the underlying factors that relate to violence, there appears to be inadequate understanding among many elected officials and county workers of what effective violence prevention entails. For example, there was little awareness or understanding of how to prevent violence other than a strategy of suppression and deterrence, in spite of understanding key underlying factors related to violence. One result is that there is virtually no dialogue across departments about how the work of each department might contribute to reducing levels of violence in Alameda County. There is no shared definition of violence prevention and even the term violence has different meanings and implications to different people. As a result, there remains no articulated vision, strategy or plan for how the County of Alameda should or could reduce violence.

It's not surprising, then, that informants were not optimistic about violence being reduced. If they were hopeful about anything it was one particular piece -- one program that seemed to be working, or one person who was taking action in one community. There was not the sense of a building movement, nor a roadmap, nor of pieces coming together. An effective strategic approach to violence prevention in Alameda County would address each of the major findings in a comprehensive manner that would provide: 1) a common knowledge base about what violence prevention entails and why it is the only long term sustainable solution to the problem of violence in Alameda County; 2) a structure of accountability, leadership and collaboration; 3) a connection between county departments working on violence prevention and community based organizations engaged in related activities; and 4) a consistent and vigilant focus on the problem of violence and the potential for prevention approaches to be effective. A growing body of research confirms that the strategy should be grounded in an understanding of significant risk and resilience factors. The following table delineates underlying factors for violence in Alameda County.

Risk Factors	Resilience Factors
Poverty and economic disparity Discrimination and oppression Incarceration/Re-entry Illiteracy and poor academic achievement Firearms Experiencing and witnessing violence Alcohol and other drugs Negative family dynamics Community deterioration Mental illness Gender socialization Media violence	Meaningful opportunities for participation Positive attachments and relationships Emotional and cognitive competence Good physical and mental health Economic Capital Services and institutions Social capital Built environment Artistic and creative opportunities Media/marketing Ethnic, racial, and intergroup relations

Toward a Unified, Strategic Approach to Prevent Violence

Given the complexity of issues, policies, and systems that promote or prevent violence in Alameda County, success beckons for an action plan that coordinates, supports, and strengthens a range of efforts. Since many valuable efforts are all already underway in Alameda County, a strategic approach examines how these efforts can strengthen and add value to each other and what modifications and other efforts may be necessary. The preliminary recommendations that follow are intentionally broad. They are designed to be further shaped and defined by an advisory board that understands the needs of Alameda County. In particular, members of the advisory board will be charged with specifying the particular structure and elements of each recommendation and in delineating the contributions of different sectors in the county.

Preliminary Recommendations

1. Institute a structure for violence prevention in the county that establishes leadership and accountability. The county must have accountability for public safety outcomes and requires designated leadership to move things forward.

2. Develop a strategic blueprint for the county that delineates an overall approach for the county, key stakeholders and their roles and responsibilities, and opportunities to leverage and raise resources that will promote public safety outcomes. The County needs a prevention plan that has broad buy-in and explicit objectives, with activities and specific roles and responsibilities delineated.

3. Create a methodology and venue for coordination and communication within the county. There needs to be a forum for coordination and communication at leadership of programmatic staffing levels.

4. Increase public awareness about the underlying contributors to violence. Increasing public awareness could foster and understanding and empower broader involvement in the solution.

5. Provide interdisciplinary staff training that builds a county-wide understanding about the underlying factors contributing to violence and how to effectively prevent it. There must be a common and thorough understanding of the complexity of violence and effective prevention practice across many disciplines and sectors, including for elected officials or their staff.

6. Identify additional methods of support as well as potential barriers that the State imposes on the county's violence prevention efforts and request assistance. The county should identify particular areas of concern and of potential, and areas where waivers might allow for more effective local work.

7. Establish a system to measure effectiveness and an integrated data system that provides a complete picture of the problem as well as progress on prevention. The county needs a system that accounts for effectiveness and holds people accountable. for it. Further, it needs improved data systems that increase access, facilitate sharing across departments, and answer questions that will promote the most effective violence prevention efforts.

8. Shift the norms to where violence is intolerable and all members of the community are engaged in the solution. Shifting the norm that violence is inevitable and acceptable can promote social sanctioning and behavior change. Shifting norms about involvement in the solution can foster increased community participation.

9. Ensure that prevention efforts not only reduce risk but also promote and build hope. The promotion of positive growth and development not only will have an impact on decreasing violence, but will also impact on other outcomes such as education and literacy levels. One step in building hope is to make visible to county's long-term commitment to preventing violence, particularly in the most highly impacted communities.

10. Establish a set of shared violence prevention principles by which all relevant sectors of the county support violence prevention efforts in their everyday work. Shared principles provide common objectives and language that can promote effective internal planning and cross disciplinary collaboration. Such principles can also be used as a standard by which different sectors can be held accountable for violence prevention efforts.

Return to top of page

Putting Prevention at the Center of Community Well Being
preventioninstitute.org