FROM THE MARGINS TO THE MIDDLE: A VIOLENCE PREVENTION STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE SAFE, HEALTHY, SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES IN CALIFORNIA

Appendix I: Shifting the Focus: Participating Agencies, Departments, and Organizations

Local Participants

• City of Los Angeles, Deputy City Attorney
• County of Los Angeles, Department of Health Services
• Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles
• Mendocino County Youth Project

State Agency Participants

• Office of Senator Dede Alpert
• Office of Senator Hilda L. Solis
• Office of Criminal Justice Planning
• Office of Planning and Research
• California Commission on Improving Life through Service
• Little Hoover Commission
• California Health and Human Services Agency
  Department of Health Services; Office of Women's Health, Domestic Violence Section, State and Local Injury Control Section, Maternal and Child Health Branch, Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board
  Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs; Prevention Services Division, California Mentoring Initiative
  Department of Mental Health; Children's Systems, Specialized Programs
  Department of Aging
  Department of Rehabilitation
  Department of Developmental Services
  Department of Community Services and Development
  Department of Social Services, Office of Child Abuse Prevention
• Office of the Attorney General
  Crime and Violence Prevention Center
  Criminal Division, Criminal Justice Statistic Center
• California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
• Department of Corrections, Office of Alcohol and other drug abuse Programs
• Board of Corrections, Corrections Planning and Programs
• California Youth Authority, Office of Prevention and Victims Services
• California Business, Transportation, and Housing Authority; California Highway Patrol, Traffic Safety Program
• Office of the Inspector General
• Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
• Department of Education; Safe Schools and Violence Prevention Office, Education Support Division, Child, Youth, and Family Services Branch
• State Independent Living Council
• California Conservation Corps

State Organization Participants

• Alliance for Education Solution
• California Prevention Collaborative
• California District Attorneys Association
• Community College Foundation
• California Victims of Crime Committee

Facilitator

• Prevention Institute

Appendix II: Shifting the Focus: Steering Committee

Barb Alberson, Health Education Manager, Epidemiology and Prevention for Injury Control Branch, Department of Health Services

Milton Braswell, Assistant Deputy Director of the Office of Prevention and Victim Services, California Youth Authority

Amy Dean, Principal Consultant, Senate Select Committee on Family Child and Faith Development

Kathy Jett, Director, Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, California Health and Human Services Agency

Michael Kelly, Prevention Specialist, Crime and Violence Prevention Center, Office of the Attorney General

Alex Kelter M.D., Chief, Epidemiology and Prevention for Injury Control Branch, Department of Health Services

Dr. Jim Kooler, Director of Governor's Mentoring Partnership, Office of Governor Gray Davis Planning and Research

Kathy Lewis, Deputy Superintendent, Child, Youth and Family Services Branch, California Department of Education

Nancy Lyons, Deputy Executive Director, Little Hoover Commission

Nancy Matson, Assistant Director, Crime and Violence Prevention Center, Office of the Attorney General

Ed Melia, Special Assistant on Children and Families to the Secretary of Health and Human Services

Paul Seave, Director, Crime and Violence Prevention Center, Office of the Attorney General

Bill White, Administrator, Safe Schools and Violence Prevention Office, California Department of Education

Appendix III: Shifting the Focus: Organizational Structure

Appendix IV: A Local Call to State Action: Summary of Findings from Local Hearings

Over 200 local practitioners and government officials attended the hearings and 75 surveys were returned to Prevention Institute. Respondents and participants represented health, education, social services, local and county government, the faith community, law enforcement, grassroots organizations, community-based organizations, medical services, and other sectors. A variety of Northern and Southern California counties, both rural and urban, were also represented. Responses clustered into ten major categories, and within each category, several themes emerged. Findings are outlined below.

I. Funding

a. Local practitioners cited competitive funding as a barrier to local violence prevention success.

b. Participants supported increased local flexibility with State funding and cited categorical funding as a barrier.

c. Participants cited lack of sustainable funding as an obstacle in their local work.

d. Community practitioners supported funding for violence prevention efforts.

II. Access to Information

a. Local practitioners cited the need for better systems of information sharing regarding available funding, training opportunities, data, etc.

b. Participants cited a need for information on best practices for different populations and locales.

III. Technical Assistance

a. Local practitioners reported that State technical assistance providers are knowledgeable.

b. Participants characterized State-sponsored technical assistance as high quality.

c. Local practitioners supported expanding the content of State-sponsored technical assistance programs.

d. Local practitioners cited the need for technical assistance related to best practices.

IV. Training

a. Participants cited State-sponsored conferences as excellent training opportunities.

b. Practitioners expressed the need for State-sponsored training that addresses specific local needs.

c. Participants cited the lack of funding or restrictions on funding for training as a barrier.

V. Data

a. Local practitioners cited the difficulty of accessing locally relevant data as a barrier.

b. Practitioners cited non-integrated data reporting and operating systems as an obstacle in local work.

c. Practitioners reported that the Department of Health Services data system is useful and easy to use.

VI. Evaluation

a. Practitioners cited the need for enhanced resources (e.g., funding, staff, and training) to support evaluation.

b. Local practitioners stated that evaluation requirements are often unrelated to local measures or indicators.

VII. Local Needs and Community Ownership

a. Local violence prevention practitioners appreciated the hearing process; asking local practitioners about their experiences is valuable.

b. Participants promoted models in which work is locally owned and locally driven.

VIII. Primary Prevention

a. Local violence prevention practitioners stressed the need for increased leadership to support and advance prevention.

b. Participants expressed a desire for increased prioritization of primary prevention.

IX. Cultural Competence

a. Participants expressed the need to enhance cultural competence at the State level to address community differences such as race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and practitioner training and experience.

b. Participants expressed the need for flexibility to adopt multiple approaches to serve local populations.

X. Collaboration

a. Practitioners claimed that State level partnerships support local violence prevention efforts.

b. Participants supported models that promote community-based collaborations and cited State-mandated collaborations as a barrier in their local efforts.

c. Local practitioners cited a lack of funding to support coalition activities as a barrier in their work.

Return to main article

Return to top of page

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