Am J Community Psychol (2009) 44:221–232
DOI 10.1007/s10464-009-9271-7
ORIGINAL PAPER
Moving Toward Comprehensiveness and Sustainability in a Social
Ecological Approach to Youth Violence Prevention: Lessons from
the Asian/Pacific Islander Youth Violence Prevention Center
Karen Umemoto • Charlene K. Baker •
Susana Helm • Tai-An Miao • Deborah A. Goebert •
Earl S. Hishinuma
Published online: 13 November 2009

Society for Community Research and Action 2009
Abstract Youth violence is a serious public health prob-
lem affecting communities across the United States. The use
of a social ecological approach has helped reduce its prev-
alence. However, those who have put the approach into
practice often face challenges to effective implementation.
Addressing social ecology in all its complexity presents one
obstacle; the ability of private non-profit and public agencies
to sustain such comprehensive efforts presents another.
Here, we provide an example of our efforts to prevent youth
violence. We worked with the Asian/Pacific Islander Youth
Violence Prevention Center (APIYVPC) and two commu-
nities on O‘ahu. We provide a case example from the
Asian/Pacific Islander Youth Violence Prevention Center
(APIYVPC) of our work, in collaboration with two com-
munities on O‘ahu, to develop and implement a youth vio-
lence prevention initiative that is becoming both
comprehensive and sustainable. We illustrate the incre-
mental nature of what it means to be comprehensive and we
underscore the importance of reaching sustainability as the
project unfolds.
K. Umemoto (&)
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of
Hawai‘i, Saunders Hall, 2424 Maile Way, Room 107,
Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
e-mail: kumemoto@hawaii.edu
C. K. Baker
Department of Psychology, University of Hawai‘i,
Honolulu, HI, USA
S. Helm
T.-A. Miao
D. A. Goebert
E. S. Hishinuma
Department of Psychiatry, University of Hawai‘i,
Honolulu, HI, USA
S. Helm
T.-A. Miao
D. A. Goebert
E. S. Hishinuma
Asian/Pacific Islander Youth Violence Prevention Center,
Honolulu, HI, USA
Keywords Youth violence
Asian and Pacific Islander

Social ecological model
Program sustainability

Comprehensive strategy
Research and fieldwork on youth violence has applied
the social ecological model widely over the past several
decades (Williams et al. 2007). Based on Bronfenbren-
ner’s (1979) work on human ecology, this model views
the individual in the context of the larger environment,
including interpersonal relations, organizational settings,
community context, and larger societal forces. These
domains and the interactions among and between them—
individual, interpersonal, organizational, community and
society—constitute the dynamic social ecology that helps
to shape as well as explain the prevalence and forms
of youth violence (Garbarino 1985; Tolan and Guerra
1994).
Youth violence is a serious health problem affecting
communities across the United States (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention 2008; Dahlberg 1998; U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS] 2001).
Violence prevention and intervention initiatives take many
forms depending on the target population’s level of risk,
the developmental stage in which they may specialize, and
particularly, the level of the social ecology on which they
are focused. Initiatives that take a social ecological
approach take these multiple levels into account, based on
the assumption that programs serving individuals and
families can lessen risk-associated behaviors, but outcomes
also depend on changing conditions within the larger
ecology (Stokols 1992; Winett 1995).
Community health researchers and practitioners who
take a social ecological approach to youth violence
prevention face two major challenges. The first is
123
222
comprehensiveness in addressing the multiple levels of the
ecological model, from the micro to the macro levels
(Dahlberg and Potter 2001). The second is the ability of the
public and private non-profit sectors to sustain compre-
hensive efforts towards youth violence prevention and
intervention. This article focuses on these challenges.
Our case example will describe how the Asian/Pacific
Islander Youth Violence Prevention Center (APIYVPC)
is developing a comprehensive and sustainable youth
violence prevention initiative. We collaborated with two
adjacent communities on this project. We illustrate the
incremental nature of becoming comprehensive, and we
underscore the importance of reaching sustainability. To
achieve both requires strategic thinking; while developing
project components, stakeholders must also decide how the
current work can lead to future opportunities that extend to
the outer levels of the social ecological model. We high-
light the different research methods we have employed to
understand the problem of youth violence in the targeted
communities, along with the strategies that have been
implemented to reduce its prevalence. We also discuss the
lessons learned during this iterative process, which have
important implications for work in this field.
Youth Violence Prevention Research: Identifying Risk
and Protective Factors
Over the past several decades, violence prevention research
using the social ecological model has focused on ‘‘risk and
protective factors’’ that place individuals at greater or
lesser probability of perpetrating violence (Dahlberg and
Potter 2001; Farrell and Flannery 2006; Hawkins et al.
1998; Krug et al. 2002; Lipsey and Derzon 1998; Resnick
et al. 2004; DHHS 2001). The major domains of influence
are identified as the individual, their family, peers, school,
and community. The following list contains the known risk
factors found to be most significant predictors of violence
within the domains of the model:
1. Individual—history of violent involvement, substance
abuse, and antisocial beliefs and attitudes;
2. Family—low parental involvement, low parental edu-
cation and income, poor family functioning;
3. Peer—association with delinquent peers and social
rejection by peers
4. School—poor academic performance;
5. Community—diminished economic opportunities, low
levels of community participation and high level of
transiency (Williams et al. 2007).
Findings from research on risk and protective factors
confirm the importance of addressing multiple domains,
while identifying areas within each domain where
123
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 44:221–232
interventions can make a positive difference. The need to
design specific strategies to address unique developmental
stages has also been highlighted (Dahlberg and Potter 2001;
DHHS 2001; Elliott and Tolan 1999; Fagan and Wilkinson
1998; Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber 1998; Tolan and
Guerra 1994).
Many funded initiatives have employed a social ecolog-
ical model that aims to increase resilience by ameliorating
risk factors and strengthening those protective factors that
reduce risks. Few programs have had rigorous evaluation to
meet minimum standards of effectiveness (Mihalic et al.
2001), but many successful or promising programs have
addressed risk and protective factors across multiple
domains. Researchers have found that narrowly focused
interventions are likely to have limited impact unless they
are part of a more comprehensive strategy (Dahlberg and
Potter 2001; Farrell and Camou 2006; Farrell and Flannery
2006; Thornton et al. 2000). Many effective school-based
strategies are directed at the individual, classroom, family,
and school levels. For example, school interventions strive
to change the social climate of the school through teaching
knowledge, skills and attitudes that promote non-violence
(see Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group 1999;
Embry et al. 1996; Meyer et al. 2000). However, few of
these programs have targeted high school students (Center
for the Study and Prevention of Violence 2002–2004).
Challenges to Using the Social Ecological Model
in Youth Violence Prevention Research and Action
Increasingly practitioners see the need for strategies across
multiple domains of the social ecological model, but we
have to consider the challenges to implementing this model.
In addition to implementing strategies across the domains,
practitioners must take into account the interconnections
among the domains for a comprehensive and strategic effort.
For example, youth violence prevention research and prac-
tice often focus only on individuals and their immediate
relations or settings, whether these relations are their peers,
their family, or school (also known as the micro-system; for
reviews see DHHS 2001; Limbos et al. 2007). Programs
with an individual focus often do not consider the outer
levels or systems of the social ecological model, however,
and therefore miss opportunities to help communities on a
broad scale (Bronfenbrenner 1979; Szapocznik and Coats-
worth 1999). For example, Bronfenbrenner discussed not
only micro-systems, but also the following systems:
• The meso-system (i.e., the linkages between the micro-
system domains)
• The exo-system (i.e., the larger institutional regula-
tions, policies and procedures that shape the type and
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 44:221–232
nature of relationships between individuals and micro-
system domains), and finally, at the outermost level,
• The macro-system (i.e., the broader context such as
cultural history, economics, and social and political
influences).
Acknowledging the need to incorporate these outer levels
is easy, but it is difficult to integrate these various dimensions
and the linkages among them into a more encompassing
research and action agenda, especially in one fell swoop. We
rarely understand the full nature of the problem and the
possible solutions at the start of a project. A deep under-
standing among partners requires problem solving, including
defining the issues, planning interventions, and implement-
ing and evaluating these interventions (O’Donnell et al.
1993). In addition, a comprehensive approach requires a
level of commitment and coordination that develops slowly.
This is how to build the foundation for understanding, trust,
cooperation, and problem solving. Finally, such a compre-
hensive and strategic approach requires a focus on policy
research and advocacy, training, and community mobiliza-
tion and capacity building, about which the initial group of
stakeholders may not be well versed.
Getting public and private non-profit sectors to sustain
comprehensive and strategic efforts over time presents
another challenge. Attention is growing to building
capacity to address local problems, but discussions take
place less often on how to take a more systematic approach
towards capacity building for improving health and well-
being across communities at a societal level (Spoth and
Greenberg 2005). Building capacity at various levels of the
social ecology helps to maintain the stability and consis-
tency that are important for successful outcomes (Dres-
sendorfer et al. 2005; Farquhar et al. 2005; Sabol et al.
2004). Indeed, the two challenges mentioned above are
closely related. Achieving a more comprehensive social
ecological approach to violence prevention requires
building long-term community and institutional capacity.
While the field of youth violence prevention has
acknowledged the importance of implementing initiatives
across the ecological model (including the need to align
initiatives based on developmental age and participants’
level of risk) researchers and practitioners have faced
challenges in engaging and sustaining these more com-
prehensive endeavors.
History of APIYVPC: A School–Community–
University Collaboration
To illustrate how a social ecological model for youth
violence prevention might be operationalized with sus-
tainability as a major goal, we describe the experiences of
223
the Asian/Pacific Islander Youth Violence Prevention
Center (APIYVPC). By critically reflecting on our history,
we can identify the lessons we learned as we move forward
our experiences may also help other communities.
The APIYVPC is based at the University of Hawai‘i at
Mānoa, and is one of 10 academic centers of excellence on
youth violence prevention funded by the US Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The center consists
of researchers from multiple disciplines, including psy-
chology, social work, psychiatry, public health, urban and
regional planning, and sociology. The APIYVPC has two
full-time outreach staff and part-time staff members whose
numbers fluctuate. Part-time employees include adminis-
trative support, research faculty, research assistants, grad-
uate assistants, interns, and the principal investigator. The
APIYVPC was first funded in 2000 for 5 years by the
CDC. For this grant period, the center partnered with the
National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) in
Oakland, CA.
During its first 5 years, the APIYVPC conducted tradi-
tional research on risk and protective factors. Many studies
have looked at the risk and protective factors associated
with violence perpetration, but the culture of many com-
munities in Hawai‘i differ greatly from those in previous
research. Therefore, the APIYVPC had to assess the extent
of the problem of youth violence as well as the risk and
protective factors associated with violence perpetration
among selected cultural groups in Hawai‘i.
In 2005 the APIYVPC submitted a renewal grant
application to the CDC. In it, the center described six aims
it would focus on next. The six aims were as follows:
(1) Infrastructure and collaboration (with stakeholders
and other injury prevention centers)
(2) Community partnership, mobilization, and empower-
ment
(3) Research (to conduct scientifically rigorous and
culturally responsive research that is consistent with
a community-based participatory research model)
(4) Training (provided to community partners and API-
YVPC staff and interns)
(5) Communication and dissemination
(6) Evaluation (of the APIYVPC’s progress).
In addition, the grant required the centers to focus on
one community to increase the likelihood of achieving
positive outcomes linked with prevention activities.
Therefore, during the renewal grant writing period, the
APIYVPC approached one high school on O‘ahu where
school fights were identified as a major concern. This
school served youth from two demographically distinct
communities. Although we targeted both communities, we
focused one on community mobilization efforts. A large
Native Hawaiian community resides here. Rates of youth
123
224
violence are higher for Pacific Islander adolescents in
Hawai‘i than they are for other Asian adolescent popula-
tions (e.g., Mayeda et al. 2006). The APIYVPC felt that
this community was important to partner with in any youth
violence prevention initiative. From a practical perspective,
the principal of the high school took a proactive approach
towards the problem of youth violence and was very
willing to partner with the APIYVPC. The APIYVPC
partnered with the high school and various community
organizations, in collaboration with public agencies,
foundations, and concerned individuals.
Developing a Comprehensive Youth Violence
Prevention Initiative
We will now describe the process of the youth violence
prevention initiative. We focus on process as we feel we
need to discuss it to advance the field of youth violence
prevention, as well as developing research methods to
increase health and well-being. We describe our experi-
ences on three fronts according to aims 2, 3, and 4 of the
six aims described above. The following sections focus on
the research projects and methods used to understand youth
violence, the subsequent youth violence prevention activ-
ities initiated at the high school and within the targeted
communities, and our efforts to mobilize and build
capacity in the school and community.
To help organize the following discussion of our research,
practice, and capacity-building activities, we borrow from
Farrell and Camou (2006), who offer a grid with four
dimensions to plan a comprehensive intervention strategy
(see Fig. 1). The first dimension is the ecological model and
its four systems. The second dimension breaks down the
developmental stages of the target population (young chil-
dren, ‘‘tweens,’’ young adults, etc.) by school level (see
Williams et al. 1997). The grid also includes whether com-
ponents and activities of the initiative are universal, selec-
tive, or indicated prevention based on the participants’ level
of risk (as defined by the Institute of Medicine Report, 1994).
A fourth dimension (not included in the current paper)
considers the goals of the program, such as whether the
program seeks to reduce specific types of violence, reduce
problem behaviors more generally, or promote positive
youth development. Our rationale for using this visual rep-
resentation is that it calls attention to these dimensions, in
conjunction with the different levels of the social ecology.
The Need for Diverse Research Methods
We discuss research projects first, but please note the
iterative process between research and practice. With each
123
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 44:221–232
High School
Developmental
Stage Middle School
Elementary
Micro
Meso
Ecological
Domain
Exo
Macro
Universal
Selective
Indicated
Participants’
Level of Risk
Fig. 1 A grid model for classifying youth violence prevention efforts
according to the following: level of social ecology, developmental
stage, and level of risk in the target population. Reproduced from
Farrell and Camou (2006)
research project we incorporated the findings into new
research projects and also into practice. The research
evolved along with the work, with a variety of research
methods employed for different purposes, from planning to
evaluation in both school and community settings (see
Table 1 for a list of research efforts along with a descrip-
tion of the methods associated with these efforts).
We began by gathering data from existing surveillance
databases, as these data were readily available and gave us
a deeper understanding of the challenges facing the tar-
geted communities. We then developed a more compre-
hensive survey for residents in the targeted areas and for
students attending the target high school. These came to be
known as the school-wide and community household sur-
veys. In the community household survey, we found that
approximately half 51% of the respondents thought that
youth violence and delinquency were problems in their
community (Hishinuma and Chang 2008). In addition,
there was a significant association between perceptions of
youth violence and lack of community resources. The
school-wide survey included items to deepen the collective
understanding of the prevalence of violence, and associated
risk and protective factors in the targeted communities.
Results from the school-wide survey identified risk factors
for students, including impulsivity, irritability (tempera-
ment), substance use, having been victimized, and holding
gender stereotypes (Hishinuma 2008).
To dig deeper into some of the findings from the
quantitative community household and school-wide sur-
veys, we conducted focus groups with students and adults
in the community (Adler 2008; Irwin 2008; Kerr 2008).
Through these group discussions, we learned more about
micro-system influences, such as family values, that
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 44:221–232 225

Table 1 Description of APIYVPC research projects

Research projects Research methods

Existing surveillance—archival data collection
New surveillance—school-wide surveys
New surveillance—community household surveys
Tula’i project
Naturalistic study
(1) Geographic information systems from police arrest data
(2) Youth risk behavioral surveillance system
(3) Hawai‘i student alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use study
(4) E-codes from emergency rooms and hospitals in Hawai‘i
Traditional quantitative survey of 9–12th grade students, but linked with objective
school data (e.g., absences, suspensions, academic performance)
Traditional quantitative survey of households in targeted communities
Separate gender- and culture-specific focus groups with adolescents
Separate gender- and culture-specific focus groups with parents, other community
stakeholders, and adolescents

promote fighting. Many students shared that if they were
challenged to a fight at school, and did not fight, then they
would get in trouble at home. It was about family honor;
some parents expected their children to fight as well as to
win.
In addition to asking about perceptions of youth vio-
lence as a problem, we also wanted youth and adults to be
part of the solution, and therefore, in additional focus
groups, we sought ideas for ways to involve and empower
youth and community members in implementing future
youth violence prevention programs. In particular, the
school principal believed that these focus groups gave
youth the chance to offer their input, advice, and ideas for
tailoring ‘‘proven’’ programs to fit the risk-protective fac-
tors that youth and community members described. Also,
using of more qualitative methods to gather information fit
well with the Native Hawaiian culture as there is a ‘‘talk
story’’ approach, whereby community members openly
discuss issues and potential solutions. The opportunity for
open dialogue is seen as critical in allowing all voices to be
heard.
All of this information was used in the administration of
the school-wide survey the following year. We added
questions based on our findings that family values promote
fighting. These questions ware validated by the responses
to one question we asked students in the survey: ‘‘If a
student hits me, my family would want me to hit him/her
back’’ (58% agreed with this statement). In addition, the
most widely endorsed precursor to fights identified by
students was rumors on campus, although a higher per-
centage of girls (76.5%) than boys (41.5%) felt that rumors
were the cause of fights. Other causes endorsed by students
were the jealousies that go with dating, and ‘‘trying to get
respect.’’
In addition to these formal research efforts, we gathered
information for program planning through informal meth-
ods. For example, one community meeting was devoted to
a participatory planning exercise in which attendees
identified the main problems facing their community, along
with potential solutions—much like a key informant focus
group. These diverse methods resulted directly from the
APIYVPC creating different methodological tools and
approaches. The methods also resulted in a greater under-
standing of community conditions, and of the types of
violence prevention messages and activities that would be
consistent with community values.
School- and Community-based Action
Even before all of the findings from these very different
data collection methods came in, the APIYVPC began
working with the school on various projects, based on
dialogue with administrators, teachers, and staff. In work-
ing with the school and community organizations, the
initial approach was to meet the various needs that these
interests groups identified, and to provide assistance in
response to those needs. Some of the major concerns of the
school in relation to the problem of fighting on campus
were: (a) changing student attitudes that condone the use of
violence, (b) helping ease 9th graders’ transition from
middle school to high school, as the fights were most often
among 9th graders; and (c) increasing the school’s ability
to reach out to families, and to increase parental engage-
ment and involvement with the school.
Therefore, at the same time research was being con-
ducted, for the next 2 years, the APIYVPC helped the
school carry out activities that school administrators
thought would help reduce fighting. Some of these activi-
ties did not necessarily fit with the established literature on
effective youth violence prevention strategies (e.g., one-
time events). For example, to help middle school students
transition to high school, the APIYVPC facilitated violence
prevention modules as part of a 1-day ‘‘Freshman Jump-
start Orientation,’’ held before the fall semester, and a
visitation day for incoming middle school students during

123
226 Am J Community Psychol (2009) 44:221–232

the school year. Our participation in these activities was
critical in incorporating youth violence prevention efforts
from different vantage points, and also in building positive
relationships with the school and the community. Although
our efforts felt non-strategic at times, we began to evaluate
our organization’s success after every event, activity, and
meeting, based on the school and community’s praise of
the APIYVPC as not being like other researchers, who
tended to dictate to communities what should be done, and
who had only a very short-term view of the relationship.
Rather, the community viewed APIYVPC as responsive to
the needs of the school and community, and caring about
sustainability.
Not all of the activities were part of a master-planned
blueprint, but they did set the stage for what became a
comprehensive and strategic youth violence prevention
initiative. Activities were mapped onto the grid dimensions
in Fig. 1 by considering the level of the social ecological
model, developmental stage, and participants’ level of
risk. Table 2 details activities according to these three
dimensions. Space does not allow an in-depth discussion of
all activities, but we highlight several below to show how
each builds on the others.
One such activity was the development of an ethnic
studies course. The course was designed to promote
improved self-identity, cross-cultural understanding, and
tolerance for differences. The goal was to decrease pro-
violence attitudes through critical thinking, conflict resolu-
tions, and understanding diversity. Initially, the class was
piloted with a select group of high school juniors and seniors
as an after-school elective. Qualitative findings indicated
increases in personal growth, interpersonal communication
skills, and awareness and knowledge on issues of power
related to a person’s ethnic identity. In the second year, the
course moved out of the pilot stage as an elective for junior
and senior students. In the third year, given the higher rates of
fights and suspensions for 9th graders, the course was made a
requirement for all 9th graders, and continues as such at
present. Therefore, the course has been made sustainable
within the resources of the school.
Another activity targeted school-wide attitudes that
condoned violence. Initially, APIYVPC worked with

Table 2 Examples of activities within the social ecological domains by location, target population, and level of risk
Ecological Location Activity or program Target population Level of
domain risk

MICRO School Ethnic studies course 9th graders Selective

School Jump start freshman orientation 9th graders Selective
School DOE violence prevention training School complex teachers, Universal
counselors and administrators
School Safe schools task force and public service Students from all grades Universal
announcements (PSAs)
School Peer mentoring/group counseling and PSA’s Students from all grades Universal
Community Family strengthening classes Families Selective
University Asian/Pacific Islander youth violence prevention APIYVPC staff Universal
center (APIYVPC) staff development and training
MESO School- Movie & A Message (M&M) Night Students and families Universal
community
Community Monthly community meetings and organizational Community-based organizations Universal
capacity building trainings
Community Monthly community meetings and Community-based organizations, Universal
interorganizational networking public and private agencies
University APIYVPC board meetings Research organizations and community Universal
practice organizations
EXO School Examination of disciplinary policy School Indicated
School Dissemination of research School complex teachers, counselors Universal
and administrators
School and APIYVPC executive committee meetings Research organizations and school Universal
University administration
MACRO School- Airing of PSA’s at various events and School complex and community Universal
community feeder schools
Community Youth leadership summit All youth Universal
University Dissemination activities regarding APIYVPC Academic, community-based Universal
research and action initiatives and social policy audiences

123
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 44:221–232
students in the Safe Schools Task Force to develop and
implement violence prevention ideas. One idea was to
develop public service announcements (PSA’s) addressing
the identified risk factors. A group of peer mentors took
this a step further and produced an additional PSA on the
role of rumors. Then, school counselors engaged group-
counseling students (who had previously been suspended
for fighting or related problems) to help develop an addi-
tional PSA in collaboration with the peer mentor students.
Together, the counselors and students discussed the causes
and consequences of fighting and created a PSA to dis-
courage others from getting into fights.
About this same time, the APIYVPC worked with school
staff on an idea to encourage parents and other family
members to become more involved in the school. One of the
first collaborations between the center, the high school, and
the community was an event called M&M Night (Movie
and a Message Night), sponsored by the school and various
organizations. The purpose was to begin to make the school
an inviting place for parents and other community mem-
bers, and to promote positive messages in the form of
movies and student-produced PSAs. By the third M&M
Night, the attendance had increased to 300 students, family
members, and people from the community. M&M Night
also provided students with a venue from which to show
their PSAs, thus ensuring that a wider school and commu-
nity audience would see their prevention messages.
Meanwhile, to engage teachers in youth violence pre-
vention efforts, the APIYVPC developed a 3-day summer
institute entitled ‘‘Creating Safe Schools and Communities:
A Practical Toolkit of Strategies and Actions.’’ This
institute was open to Department of Education (DOE) staff
statewide, and was approved for professional development
credits. The first year the institute was offered, 34 teachers
completed the course, but only four were from the targeted
high school. In the second year, the enrollment reached the
same number, but was restricted by the DOE upon our
request to those from the target high school and its feeder
schools. With more teachers who work in the same school
complex (i.e., high school and feeder schools to the high
school) taking the course, it increased the potential for
K-12 life-span changes in school policies and practices to
result from their participation.
In addition to working with the high school and its feeder
schools, a major initiative on the community front was the
convening of monthly meetings involving most of the youth-
serving organizations in one of the targeted communities.
The meetings also brought in other cultural, educational,
recreational, and social service organizations. APIYVPC
help coordinate the meetings for this group, including the
initial one, as a way to bring interested stakeholders together
to discuss community issues. The resulting group officially
formed in fall 2007 and collectively identified broken
227
families, substance abuse, violence, and lack of awareness of
community resources as the main problems in the commu-
nity. Group members then identified potential activities to
address these problems. Subcommittees were formed to
work on strengthening families. One subcommittee worked
on a youth leadership summit. The group also charted the
course for future meetings and problem solving. They
identified training workshop topics, external organizations
they would like to network with, and resources they would
like to learn more about.
The Need for Strategic Thinking to Achieve
Comprehensiveness and Sustainability
We have presented a fairly clear-cut series of collaborative
research and action events to exemplify our approach for
developing and implementing a youth violence prevention
initiative. It may appear to have been a deductive process,
but we succeeded more inductively. Strategic thinking and
action do not just happen in a pre-determined, linear
fashion. Rather, it is more accurate to describe our move to
strategic thinking as emergent and iterative. That is, instead
of developing a strategic plan for a comprehensive youth
violence prevention initiative through a series of meetings
at the beginning of the partnership, various programs and
activities developed organically as needs and opportunities
arose. Each project strengthened trust and understanding
between the partners. The APIYVPC gained a better
understanding of what the school and community faced, as
well as what they had to offer, and vice versa. Initial
projects tended to focus on the micro-system by working
with student groups or organizations to affect their imme-
diate behavior or operations. However, these activities
grew and extended to other levels. For example, develop-
ing PSAs helped students better understand the problem
and see themselves and their peers as part of the solution
(micro-system). What’s more, these announcements were
shown in various venues, such as M&M Night, where
students and their families received messages aimed at
shifting social norms (meso- and macro-systems).
Similarly, the summer institute organized through the
DOE encouraged changes in school curricula, procedures,
and policies (exo-system). To complete the course,
attendees have to develop a protocol for their school in
response to violent incidents, develop an assessment form
for students at risk of violence, develop an anti-violence
matrix of prevention and intervention activities, and
develop a lesson plan or activity on violence and harass-
ment that includes various forms of violence and student
strategies to avoid or reduce its occurrence.
But, strategic thinking that is emergent runs the risk of
becoming undirected and somewhat haphazard. Indeed,
123
228
there was the danger of simply responding to school and
community requests for assistance to the point where we
lose the forest through the trees. Therefore, about 2 years
into the funding cycle, the APIYVPC began to make a
more concerted effort to engage the school and community
partners in discussions related to developing a more
focused and strategic approach to the youth violence pre-
vention initiative. This is not to say that there was no
strategic thinking prior to this point or that the assistance
provided was misdirected. However, when taking a more
incremental approach, it is important to be mindful of how
smaller scale, micro-system centered activities that lead to
deeper understanding and trust can also open opportunities
to expand the work to other levels of the social ecology.
Subsequently, we have encouraged partners to think
about what a more comprehensive and strategic approach
might look like, with sustainability as a major consider-
ation. For example, we introduced the idea of a school
climate intervention to the principal. Having prior knowl-
edge of such an approach, the principal wanted to make
sure that teachers would support it given the scope and
impact that it would have on the school as a whole.
Therefore, the principal asked the APIYVPC to present the
findings that we had gathered from the school-wide surveys
and focus groups to teachers and staff and to describe how
these results might justify the need for a systems-level
intervention. We are still in the process of having these
conversations with the school to explore how the current
activities address the various problems and what might
help coalesce these and future activities into a compre-
hensive and sustainable approach. In these conversations
we are also discussing the need to evaluate the intervention
and what those particular methods might look like.
Lessons on Moving Toward Sustainability
and Comprehensiveness
We draw many lessons from the work of the APIYVPC
related to our emphasis on developing and implementing a
comprehensive and sustainable youth violence prevention
initiative using the social ecological model to guide us. We
describe some of these lessons below. Although we discuss
them in the context of our work at the APIYVPC, the lessons
can be translated to other community health efforts as well.
Take a Facilitative Role That Nurtures School and
Community Engagement and Ownership While Sharing
Relevant Expertise
APIYVPC has approached the partnership with the school
and community organizations from the standpoint of (a)
enhancing what organizations and institutions do without
123
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 44:221–232
diminishing any of their own initiative and mission, (b)
broaching new ideas within the normal set of planning
processes and procedures within the school to ensure that
new initiatives are owned and directed by them, (c)
offering information on a variety of issues and a menu of
possible alternatives to enhance informed decision-making
about violence prevention strategies, and (d) working clo-
sely with school administrators and organizational leaders
to ensure that interventions are planned, implemented,
evaluated and led by those who can learn to sustain them.
There is a fine line that university partners walk in playing
an enabling role in communities. On one hand, there is the
pitfall of acting as or being perceived as ‘‘the expert’’ who
takes the leading role and, on the other, playing a more
passive role of facilitator without fully sharing the avail-
able expertise due to an effort to avoid undermining
community initiative. The trick is to facilitate the devel-
opment of stakeholder initiative and engagement by uti-
lizing university expertise and resources to inform and
inspire, building upon existing assets and strengths.
In the community, APIYVPC has played a role as
convener and co-facilitator, structuring the initial meetings
so that community partners could collaboratively define
and prioritize problems and needs, set the agenda for future
meetings, and help to facilitate team-building exercises
among attendees, mindful of cultural protocols and sensi-
bilities. There is acknowledgement of the APIYVPC’s role
in co-facilitating the meetings, providing refreshments as
well as meeting announcements and summaries. However,
there is a strong sense that the meetings are held for the
partners to define their future as a community. In the
school, the APIYVPC has worked closely with the prin-
cipal and key staff, who have provided the guidance in
working with other teachers, counselors, and staff in order
to maximize the benefits of the partnership to meet the
common goal of violence reduction.
Focus on Capacity Building at the Community,
Organizational, and Institutional Levels
Because of the wide scope of the social ecological model, it
can be a daunting task to build a comprehensive infra-
structure for violence prevention that can be sustained
across multiple levels. To this end, we have found that it is
most workable to focus on building capacity at the school
and community organization levels that could then filter up
to larger institutional systems changes and filter down to
the individuals and families they serve. For example, the
assembly of community groups has initiated joint projects
that increase the capacity of their members through training
and help them reach families. They have worked with
Strengthening Hawai‘i Families through which members of
the respective organizations received training to facilitate
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 44:221–232
the program. They implemented a 7-week program,
recruiting local families to participate. By using a train-the-
trainer approach, not only will they be able to operate the
program in the future, they also will be able to integrate the
various techniques into their ongoing work with the youth
and families they would like to reach.
Promote the Use of the Social Ecological Model
Among Partners
One of the most difficult challenges is to create a sense of
collective action around a holistic approach so that orga-
nizations and individuals can see the ‘‘big picture’’ and the
role they can (or do) play in it. A holistic approach comes
from understanding what a ‘‘social ecological model’’
could look like and to see if and how that resonates with
their experience. Time must be spent on this discussion so
that all parties can come to see how their respective work
complements one another and how to build upon their
collective strengths and shared vision. When this is
accomplished, the network of organizations and institutions
can begin to work as a unified whole and better synchro-
nize their respective areas of work towards a common goal,
in this case violence reduction. The APIYVPC’s Commu-
nity Advisory Board, comprised of representatives of the
various youth-serving organizations as well as schools and
agencies, is one venue in which more involved strategic
discussions such as this takes place.
Align Collaborative Efforts with the Social Ecological
Model
Collaboration based on the social ecological model often
requires action on many different fronts at the same time.
Rather than focusing on a single project and allocating
time, resources, and funds accordingly, a social ecological
approach involves simultaneously taking strategic action
on a number of fronts, and ensuring the coordination of
these actions. This can include a focal project, but often
involves multiple projects, multiple working groups and
multiple arenas, such as a school, a community, the leg-
islature, or the mass media. It may also involve a wide
variety of activities, from training and technical assistance
to research and outreach.
Aligning the work of a university center to a compre-
hensive model takes a great deal of coordination, planning,
flexibility of personnel duties, and a wide-ranging skill set
among staff. It is particularly helpful to have a multi-disci-
plinary team to steward the project. As the work proceeds on
various fronts, there is the risk that the efforts will become
disparate and spin off in disjointed tangents. Meanwhile,
strategic opportunities can be missed. Thinking critically
about the work from multiple vantage points—stakeholders,
229
intellectual disciplines, areas of responsibility, geographical
worksites—can help to ensure reaching goals such as sus-
tainability and comprehensiveness.
Practical Lessons on Conducting Research to Promote
Community Health Outcomes
We also draw practical lessons from our work to promote
community health. We have had to adjust as a research
center and therefore present some of the challenges that
multi-disciplinary research teams face in reaching their
goals.
Take Advantage of the Methodological, Theoretical,
and Pedagogical Richness of a Multidisciplinary Staff
Often, researchers from different disciplines use different
languages to describe the same phenomena. Staff may also
have different conceptions on who and what to focus on to
reach their goal. For example, the APIYVPC has had many
discussions about the most effective way to reduce youth
violence. Is it by conducting universal strategies or by
focusing on those students who have already been involved
in fights so as to facilitate their positive re-entry into the
school? And, depending on the training of the researchers,
these different philosophies can affect the initiative. As an
example, the original grant, funded in 2000, although
entailing components of a social ecological approach
whereby emphasis was not only placed at the individual
level, the underpinnings associated with a criminal justice
approach were utilized resulting in the first surveillance
survey having more emphasis on the individual than on
other levels, including attitudes toward violence and vio-
lence perpetration, substance use behaviors, temperament,
and other individual-level risk behaviors. In the renewal,
with the addition of researchers from other disciplines (e.g.,
urban and regional planning, sociology, social work,
community psychology), other contextual variables related
to violence perpetration were included. In other words,
research strategies became more diverse as the diversity of
the research staff increased. Along these same lines, some
APIYVPC staff members were more versed in process
activities versus measuring outcomes. As we have moved
through the initiative, there has been a need for creativity
and innovation not only in the development and imple-
mentation of school and community-based activities, but
also in making decisions about evaluation. Although not
seamless, combining these areas of expertise has led to
increased coordination among research, action, and evalu-
ation activities, thus increasing the potential for achieving
the intended health outcomes.
123
230
Expand and Integrate Research Methods and Sources
of Data
In our research we have gleaned much information that can
be used in developing and implementing a youth violence
prevention initiative. Various sources and methods were
used to collect this information. In fact, given the com-
plexity of the social problems facing society, there has
been an increased emphasis on the need for multi-disci-
plinary work as a way to increase the richness and use-
fulness of our data collection. From our experiences, it is
clear that without such an openness and ability to collect
diverse sets of data, we would have missed critical parts of
the story. But, in addition to the data collected through
formal methods requiring Institutional Review Board (IRB)
approvals, we must also emphasize that much of what we
learned came from informal means. Engaging in the vari-
ous activities and having an office for the APIYVPC on the
school campus provided many opportunities for informal
discussions and observations that would not have been as
easily gained through the use of only formal research
methods. As an organization, we have strived to be con-
scientious about processing our observations and integrat-
ing them into future research and action.
Integrate Research and Action to Maximize
the Suitability and Benefits of Both
In addition to expanding and integrating various research
methods, a tighter integration of research and action can
help to ensure that the most appropriate and efficacious
approaches are pursued. The violence-prevention initiative
evolved continuously based on assessments of needs and
opportunities, the involvement of new partners, changing
priorities among stakeholders, the development and eval-
uation of various pilot efforts, as well as unexpected
events, including acts of violence. Research that is inte-
grated into action can provide critical information to guide
the work in a timely manner.
Conversely, the practical work can open new research
opportunities that would not have existed otherwise, due to
reasons such as lack of knowledge of a data source or lack
of trust to share information. For example, a new research
project, the ‘‘Genealogy of Fights,’’ will examine, on a
qualitative level, the origins of school fights at the high
school, in an effort to determine patterns in the genealogy
of multiple fights (e.g., common origins of different fights).
Then, questions regarding the origins of school fights will
be systematically asked of the students involved, and stu-
dents will be subsequently interviewed to gain further
insights. In addition, school personnel will be interviewed
for their reflections and input. This study arose from work
with the principal, who identified the need for this
123
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 44:221–232
information and facilitated the approvals needed to begin
the project.
Work Collectively to Address the Various Challenges
to Community Research
There are many challenges to community health research,
including the need to evolve the research focus and
methods to the changing circumstances and needs of the
work, and the need to educate funding agencies and com-
munity partners of the time it takes for research to have an
impact on real-life conditions. First, sometimes the
research is not in ‘‘sync’’ with family, school, or commu-
nity practices, and adjustments need to be made. It is
helpful to develop a supportive learning community among
researchers and practitioners to address this challenge. For
example, the APIYVPC has developed a leadership group
made up of key individuals involved in both the research
and practice (many do both) that meets on a regular basis to
trouble-shoot such issues.
As we have discussed this process takes time to unfold.
Often, surveillance projects are necessary before inter-
vention development proceeds. Even when interventions
have been developed and are ready to be implemented,
there may be a lag between the introduction of the inter-
vention and achieving the desired health outcomes.
Therefore, researchers must take care to identify interme-
diate outcomes that are hypothesized to be linked with the
desired outcome. In this way, engagement in the process
can be sustained, which is critical if the initiative is to
continue and stakeholders are to view it as valuable to their
community.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the challenges of comprehensiveness and
sustainability related to using a social ecological approach
to youth violence prevention must be addressed incre-
mentally over time. First, and foremost, trust must be built
in the community. This is especially important among
particular geographic or ethnocultural communities that
may not have a high level of trust for outsiders based on
prior experiences, and specifically for researchers who
want to ‘‘help’’ them. This is where an incremental
approach is of critical importance. Such an approach allows
for trust and relationship building, information gathering,
digesting information, and strategic thinking about solu-
tions. Finally, we must be open to the diverse set of
research methods that can be useful in our efforts. Often,
we rely on quantitative surveys that seek information on
traditional risk and protective factors. This is not to say that
these methods are not important; however, other methods
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 44:221–232
are needed to complement them. We found this to be
important in our work with the Native Hawaiian commu-
nity, who share a distinct epistemology and favor a more
relational, interactive ‘‘talk story’’ approach in the oral
tradition. Therefore, to achieve positive health outcomes
among diverse communities, be it in the reduction of vio-
lence or other public health problems, researchers must
adjust to different ways of thinking, organically evolving
plans and innovative strategies for research and action.
Acknowledgments This manuscript was supported by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; R49/CCR918619-05;
Cooperative Agreement #1 U49/CE000749-01). The contents of this
article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not neces-
sarily represent the official views of the funding agencies.
References
Adler, C. (2008, November). Fighting, self-reliance, and being the
‘‘Bigger Man’’: Youth violence in Hawaiian and Samoan
communities. Presentation to the annual meetings of the American
Society of Criminology, St. Louis, Missouri.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development:
Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: The Harvard
University Press.
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (2002–2004).
Blueprints for violence prevention. http://www.colorado.edu/
cspv/blueprints/ (Accessed May 21, 2008).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008). Youth violence
facts at a glance [Updated Summer 2008, cited July 1, 2008].
Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/YV_DataSheet.pdf.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). Initial impact
of the fast track prevention trial for conduct problems: II.
Classroom effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 67, 648–657.
Dahlberg, L. (1998). Youth violence in the United States: Major
trends, risk factors, and prevention approaches. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 259–272.
Dahlberg, L. L., & Potter, L. B. (2001). Youth violence: Develop-
mental pathways and prevention challenges. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 20, 3–14.
Dressendorfer, R. H., Raine, K., Dyck, R. J., Plotnikoff, R. C.,
Collins-Nakai, R. L., et al. (2005). A conceptual model of
community capacity development for health promotion in the
Alberta heart health project. Health Promotion and Practice, 6,
31–36.
Elliott, D. S., & Tolan, P. H. (1999). Youth violence prevention,
intervention, and social policy: An overview. In C. R. Huff (Ed.),
Youth violence prevention, intervention, and social policy
(pp. 3–46). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Embry, D. D., Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Powell, K. E., & Atha,
H. (1996). Peacebuilders: A theoretically driven, school-based
model for early violence prevention. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 12, 91–100.
Fagan, J., & Wilkinson, D. L. (1998). Social contexts and functions of
adolescent violence. In D. S. Elliott, B. A. Hamburg, & K. R.
Williams (Eds.), Violence in American schools: A new perspec-
tive. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Farquhar, S. A., Michael, Y. L., & Wiggins, N. (2005). Building on
leadership and social capital to create change in two urban
communities. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 596–601.
231
Farrell, A. D., & Camou, S. (2006). School-based interventions for
youth violence prevention. In J. Lutzker (Ed.), Preventing
violence: Research and evidence-based intervention strategies
(pp. 125–146). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Farrell, A. D., & Flannery, D. J. (2006). Youth violence prevention:
Are we there yet? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(2),
138–150.
Garbarino, J. (1985). Adolescent development: An ecological per-
spective. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Hawkins, J., Herrenkohl, T., Farrington, D., Brewer, D., Catalano, R.,
& Harachi, T. (1998). Serious and violent juvenile offenders:
Risk factors and successful interventions. In R. Loeber (Ed.), A
review of predictors of youth violence (pp. 106–146). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Farrington.
Hishinuma, E. S. (2008, April). Overview of the Asian/Pacific
Islander Youth Violence Prevention Center. Presentation at the
quarterly meeting of the Injury Prevention Advisory Committee,
Honolulu, HI.
Hishinuma, E. S., & Chang, J. (2008, April). Community household
survey on youth violence: A study by the Asian/Pacific Islander
Youth Violence Prevention Center. Presentation at the Grand
Rounds of the Department of Psychiatry, John A. Burns School
of Medicine, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI.
Irwin, K. (2008, November). Rational and irrational violence: Girls’
place in subcultures of violence. Presentation to the annual
meetings of the American Society of Criminology, St. Louis,
Missouri.
Kerr, D. (2008, November). Who do you think you’re talking to?
Dating, violence and control among high school students.
Presentation to the annual meetings of the American Society
of Criminology, St. Louis, Missouri.
Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. B., & Lozano, R.
(2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva: World
Health Organization.
Limbos, M. A., Chan, L. S., Warf, C., Schneir, A., Iverson, E.,
Shekelle, P., et al. (2007). Effectiveness of interventions to
prevent youth violence: A systematic review. American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 33(1), 65–74.
Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (1998). Predictors of violent or
serious delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood: A
synthesis of longitudinal research. In R. Loeber & D. P.
Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk
factors and successful interventions (pp. 86–105). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1998). Juvenile aggression at
home and at school. In D. S. Elliott, B. A. Hamburg, & K. R.
Williams (Eds.), Violence in American schools: A new perspec-
tive (pp. 94–126). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mayeda, D. T., Hishinuma, E. S., Nishimura, S. T., Garcia-Santiago, O.,
& Mark, G. Y. (2006). Asian/Pacific Islander Youth Violence
Prevention Center: Interpersonal violence and deviant behaviors
among youth in Hawai’i. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 276e1–
276e11.
Meyer, A. L., Farrell, A. D., Northup, W., Kung, E. M., & Plybon, L.
(2000). Promoting non-violence in early adolescence: Respond-
ing in peaceful and positive ways. New York: Kluwer.
Mihalic, S., Irwin, K., Elliott, D., Fagan, A., & Hansen, D. (2001,
July). Blueprints for violence prevention (OJJDP Juvenile Justice
Bulletin). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. http://www.
ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/187079.pdf. Accessed 12 Aug 2009.
O’Donnell, C. R., Tharp, R. G., & Wilson, K. (1993). Activity
settings as the unit of analysis: A theoretical basis for community
intervention and development. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 21(4), 501–520.
123
232
Resnick, M. D., Ireland, M., & Borowsky, I. (2004). Youth violence
perpetration: What protects? What predicts? Findings from the
national longitudinal study of adolescent health. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 35, 424.e1–424.e10.
Sabol, W. J., Coulton, C. J., & Korbin, J. E. (2004). Building
community capacity for violence prevention. Journal of Inter-
personal Violence, 19, 322–340.
Spoth, R. L., & Greenberg, M. T. (2005). Toward a comprehensive
strategy for effective practitioner-scientist partnerships and
larger-scale community health and well-being. American Jour-
nal of Community Psychology, 35(3/4), 107–126.
Stokols, D. (1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy environ-
ments: Toward a social ecology of health promotion. American
Psychologist, 47(1), 6–22.
Szapocznik, J., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1999). An ecodevelopmental
framework for organizing the influences on drug abuse. A
developmental model of risk and protection. In M. D. Glantz &
C. R. Hartel (Eds.), Drug abuse: Origins and interventions
(pp. 331–366). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
123
Am J Community Psychol (2009) 44:221–232
Thornton, T. N., Craft, C. A., Dahlberg, L. L., Lynch, B. S., & Baer,
K. (2000). Best practices of youth violence prevention: A
sourcebook for community action. Atlanta, GA: Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
Tolan, P., & Guerra, N. (1994). What works in reducing adolescent
violence: An empirical look at the field. Chicago, IL: University
of Illinois at Chicago for the Center for the Study and Prevention
of Violence.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Youth
violence: A report of the surgeon general. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., & Elliott, D. S. (1997). Human
development and violence prevention: A focus on youth.
Boulder, CO: The Center for the Study and Prevention of
Violence, Institute for Behavioral Science.
Williams, K., Riveras, L., Neighbours, R., & Reznik, V. (2007).
Youth violence prevention comes of age: Research, training and
future directions. Annual Review of Public Health, 28, 195–211.
Winett, R. A. (1995). A framework for health promotion and disease
prevention programs. American Psychologist, 50, 341–350.