Wilder Research Center 1295 Bandana Boulevard, Suite 210 St. Paul, MN 55108
The Initiative for Violence Free Families and Communities in Ramsey County is a comprehensive, grassroots effort to prevent violence. The work of the initiative is intended to touch and influence people on all levels and in all parts of the community. It is the hope and intention that this influence will spead throughout the entire community and beyond. For more information contact: Shirley Pierce, (651) 266-8020 Don Gault, (651) 266-2404
We thank our colleagues at Wilder Research Center who were instrumental in completing this evaluation report. We appreciate the dedication and attention to detail of the following Wilder Research Center staff members, who helped with data collection, data processing and administrative support on this project: Marilyn Conrad and Louann Graham provided word processing and formatting assistance; Phil Cooper and Bryan Lloyd coordinated the data processing; Brandi Cook and Bryan Lloyd coordinated data collection. Other WRC staff who helped with interviewing, coding and data processing are: Mary Jo Bartle, Amy Blackstone, Shannon Brumbaugh, Laurie Chouanard, Deborah Dragseth, Linda Houle, Sharon Lyons, Heather Loch, Kate Mattessich, Shermin Moledina, Barbara Monsey, Kristen Mueller, Sean Peterson, Wendy Sedlak, Linda Stork, Mary Tillman, Kent Treichel, and Darlene Zappa.
Additionally, Ramsey County staff and Initiative leaders and members helped by providing information about the Action Teams. We appreciate the cooperation and insight of every Action Team member; particularly those who participated in telephone interviews. We wish to thank several individuals who provided extra assistance on this project, including: Mary Ackerman, John Choi, Jack Duchow, Rob Fulton, Don Gault, Bob Hanson, Lorraine Hertz, Pat Howell, Jerry Jaker, Art Johnson, Dave Mathews, Devin Miller, Amy Okaya, Shirley Pierce, Nancy Riestenberg, Jon Roesler, Carol Seidenkranz, and Peg Wangensteen.
This evaluation was funded by The Saint Paul Foundation, the Mardag Foundation, the Saint Paul Companies, and the F. R. Bigelow Foundation.
Ramsey County formulated the Initiative for Violence Free Families and Communities in 1991, and fully implemented the Initiative in 1992. The Initiative is intended to be a comprehensive, grassroots campaign to reduce violence in the County.
The assumptions behind the design of the Initiative are that:
Community members will participate in Action Teams of their choice, to work on reducing violence within specific focus areas, such as the workplace, the media, churches, schools, and so on.
The activities of the Action Teams will influence people (often leaders or educators within a system) who belong to the focus areas of the teams.
People influenced by the teams whether they are religious leaders, legislators, journalists, teachers, human resources staff, or something else will then influence other people whom they contact.
Eventually, this influence will spread throughout the entire community. Attitudes about violence will change, awareness and knowledge about violence will increase, and violence in Ramsey County will decrease.
The assumptions behind the Initiative (listed above) suggest a "chain" of potential impacts. This "chain" is depicted below in Figure A. First, the teams engage in activities and begin to deliver "products"(1 below). These activities first have an impact on action team members. For example, they experience growth (2 below). Action Team members then take steps to produce impacts on key individuals (3 below). In turn, these key individuals increase their efforts to reduce violence, so that the influence of the teams permeates the system or group, and impacts its members (4 below). If all goes as planned, improvement in the knowledge, attitudes and skills of community members should occur, with a resulting decrease in violence (5 below).
Potential Impacts of the Initiative
5 Long-Term Impacts: Impacts on Individuals in Community: Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills Improve Violence Decreases
4 Intermediate and Long-Term Impacts: Impacts on Individuals who Participate in Or are Served by Systems or Focus Areas
3 Intermediate Impacts: Impacts on Leaders, Educators or Other People Involved in Systems or Focus Areas
2 Initial Impacts: Impacts on Members of Teams
1 Products Activities and Accomplishments of Teams
This evaluation looks at the initial and intermediate impacts of the Initiative during its first five years (the shaded areas in Figure A, 3, 2, and 1). The Initiative's designers hope that, eventually, the Initiative will decrease violence in Ramsey County. However, such violence reduction probably will not happen, at least in a way that can be linked back to the Initiative, for a number of years after the inception of the Initiative. This evaluation assumes that five years does not offer enough time for the Initiative to have made a measurable impact on the community in general. Instead, it is more valuable to look at initial and intermediate impacts, to provide useful information for improvement.
During the years, 1992 to 1997, a total of 17 teams operated for at least some period of time. This evaluation of the first five years focused on five of the most active teams:
Education Action Team
Gun Violence Action Team
Interfaith Action Team
Media Action Team
Workplace Action Team
Products These five teams involved at least 483 individuals as members during some or all of the five year period. Team members tend to be well educated (90% with college education); mostly "middle aged" (two-thirds of them between 31 and 50 years old); and predominantly White (89%).
The five teams carried out a total of at least 67 activities during that time. Activities varied greatly in their scope. The most common activities included:
Development of Information Sources: The five teams developed at least 27 information sources over the five years. These included brochures or pamphlets distributed through organizations or to the general public. Most information sources were designed to raise awareness.
Forums/Trainings: At least 14 of these events occurred during the five years, intended to educate professionals and the general public about violence issues.
Public Relations/Media Events: 12 activities classified as public relations or media events took place during the five years. Examples include press conferences and large presentations, along with efforts to decrease violent message advertising.
Initial Impacts/Member Interview To document the impacts of these activities, active and inactive members of five teams completed telephone interviews about their experiences and satisfaction with the Initiative. Some key findings from these interviews include:
The most common reasons for joining a team were: the desire to address a specific type of violence; the desire to address violence in general; and the desire to learn about violence issues.
An interest in violence issues and a desire to network with others interested in violence provided the most common motivation to attend meetings. Reasons for missing meetings included a lack of time and scheduling conflicts.
About half of the respondents had attended at least one event planned by their team in the last year, and half had participated in the planning of a product, event or project in the last year.
Nearly all members felt their team had at least had a "slightly positive impact on the community." A third felt the impact was "far reaching and positive."
Across teams, members listed "community outreach" and "people from different backgrounds working together" as the teams' most important accomplishments.
Members felt their teams had worked together effectively, and had made decisions in a satisfactory manner. Most members felt they had at least some influence in decision making, and that other team members listened to and accepted new ideas.
Members expressed a high level of satisfaction with team leadership.
Nearly all members felt that Ramsey County staff participation had affected their team in a positive manner, and that the County as an organization played a helpful role.
Intermediate Impacts As depicted in Figure A, this evaluation documents the products, initial impacts, and intermediate impacts of the Initiative. An indication of intermediate impacts should, assuming the Initiative's general model is sound, also provide some indication of whether the Initiative is moving closer to accomplishing its ultimate goal of reducing violence in Ramsey County. A complete discussion of Intermediate Impacts for each Action Team is provided in the full report. Here, we provide summaries of key findings related to intermediate impacts for each of the five teams involved in the evaluation: Education, Gun Violence, Interfaith, Media, and Workplace.
Education Action Team
37 Assistant Principals and Principals from elementary, middle, and high schools in Ramsey County completed telephone interviews.
A small percentage of respondents were aware of their school's contact with the team. Of these, all said the team had caused their school to change or add to its violence prevention efforts.
Respondents from suburban school districts listed examples of how they had used the Community Violence Prevention Council Grants obtained through the Education Team. The most common uses of the grants included: hiring a violence prevention coordinator; adding a drug-free education program; general improvement due to increased funds; and more focused efforts due to increased funds.
Respondents listed 35 outside organizations who had helped their schools with Violence Prevention. Among these, 18 were strongly involved with work of the Education Team, and 4 were at least peripherally involved with the team's work.
Overall, respondents indicated that schools in Ramsey County have a high level of awareness related to violence, and that schools address violence throughout their programs. Many of the efforts to address violence were implemented during the time since the Education Team's inception.
Overall, results indicate that the Education Team offers fairly important resources to schools.
Gun Violence Action Team
The Gun Violence Action Team (GVAT) is currently in a transitional phase shifting from a legislative focus to a public health approach. This report makes recommendations for evaluating impacts as this new direction takes shape, and it provides some general observations and recommendations for the GVAT.
The GVAT has engaged in at least four separate lobbying efforts related to state legislation. Some of these efforts continue.
The GVAT obtained a large grant from the Joyce Foundation to take a public health approach to reducing gun violence. Through this grant, the team has hosted community forums and made efforts to improve tracking and reporting of gunshot wound data in hospital emergency rooms statewide.
Interfaith Action Team
Thirty clergy and other religious professionals in Ramsey County answered a telephone interview about the status of violence prevention in the churches and the impacts of the Interfaith Team on their organization.
A small percentage of respondents were aware of their organization's contact with the Interfaith Team. Of those who were aware, all said that contact with the Interfaith Team had led their church to change, or add to, its violence prevention efforts. All felt the team had helped their congregation increase awareness about family violence.
Some respondents who stated no awareness of the Interfaith Team actually recognized some of the team's products. These products were the Interfaith Family Violence Prevention Resource Center and the Covenant to Join the Journey to Help End Family Violence. Most respondents felt the Resource Center was at least "somewhat useful," and half said the Covenant prompted action on the part of their congregation.
Respondents listed 35 outside organizations that had been helpful in their church's violence prevention efforts. Of these, 8 organizations listed were involved at least peripherally with the Interfaith Team's work, and 9 were strongly involved with the team's work through collaborations or sharing of information.
Overall, few of the religious organizations interviewed offer services or have policies related to violence prevention or intervention. Of the services that are offered and policies that exist, most have been implemented in the time since the Interfaith Team's inception.
Although respondents reported relatively low recognition of the Interfaith team, the team is probably still making important contact with churches through its products and its collaboration with other organizations.
Most respondents reported a "low" or "moderately low" level of need for violence prevention activities in their congregation. They also tended to think that family violence is "not a significant problem" for members of the congregation. These findings may indicate either that the need for violence prevention is low, or that violence problems remain invisible to clergy and lay leaders. The Interfaith Team should explore this question to determine whether to focus on raising awareness in religious organizations.
Media Action Team
The Media Team has successfully encouraged a number of advertisers to discontinue advertisements that convey a violent message. The team also created a "how-to" brochure for individuals who are interested in campaigning to remove violent messages from the media.
The team's efforts to help advertisers find non-violent alternatives to their current advertisements, along with the efforts to empower the public through a "how-to" brochure are appropriate. The team should continue to focus its efforts strategically on the most widespread advertisements directed toward the most vulnerable members of the population.
The team created at least 8 media pieces with an anti-violence message. These efforts provide concrete results, thereby enabling members to move on to a next effort with a sense of achievement and satisfaction.
Workplace Action Team
Thirty individuals from organizations previously in contact with the Workplace Action Team completed telephone interviews.
Slightly less than half of the respondents remembered that their organization had been in contact with the Workplace Action Team. About a third of this group said the team had caused their organization to change, or add to, its violence policies. All respondents who remembered the team felt the team's contribution to their organization was at least "somewhat important."
About half of the respondents either had attended, or knew a coworker who had attended, a workplace forum on violence, presented by the team. Most of these respondents considered the forums "very helpful" as a resource to their organization. Slightly fewer respondents remembered receiving the team's workbook and video training materials. All who did know about the materials rated them as at least "somewhat helpful."
Respondents listed 23 examples of outside programs that help their organization with violence prevention efforts. Four of the groups listed have been at least peripherally involved in the Workplace Team's efforts, and one was a group that was involved with the team in a substantial way.
Most respondents saw violence as a cost to their organization, and many organizations who completed this interview appeared to be addressing that concern. However, this interview presumably included the most proactive organizations, since they already had contact with the Workplace Team. The Workplace Team should try to engage other, less proactive organizations in violence prevention and education.
Many of the violence prevention activities and policies that currently exist in these organizations were implemented since the inception of the Workplace Team. This indicates that the climate in these businesses has shifted toward acknowledging the importance of violence in the workplace.
Community Building The characteristics of the Initiative closely parallel the "ingredients necessary for successful community building" identified by Wilder Research Center in the book, Community Building: What Makes it Work.[1]
The characteristics of successful community building efforts that this book identifies, and that the Initiative contains, include:
Community awareness of an issue
Benefits to many residents
Motivation from within the community
Focus on product and process concurrently
Flexibility and adaptability
Linkage to organizations outside the community
Ability to discuss, reach consensus
Systematic gathering of information and analysis of community issues
Existing, identifiable leadership
Training to gain community building skills
Widespread participation
Continual emergence of new leaders, as needed
Good system of communication
Community control over decision making
Minimal competition in pursuit of goals
The right mix of resources
Develop self-understanding
The Ramsey County staff who facilitate the Initiative also display attributes identified in the book as characteristics of community organizers that encourage a successful initiative. These include:
Understanding the community
Sincerity of commitment
A relationship of trust
Ability to be flexible and adaptable
Replication
Based on this research, the Initiative can be replicated as a violence prevention initiative in another community, as long as the community maintains the characteristics (identified above) leading to success. The Ramsey County model depended upon stable resources and staffing. These would probably be essential for a new initiative to succeed.
The model of the Initiative could also probably be used with an issue other than violence, provided the community has great interest in that issue, as Ramsey County does in violence. Issues that are not already of immediate concern to a large number of individuals in the community would not be good candidates for this model.
Improvement What might the Initiative consider for future improvement?
The Initiative should look closely at how well its members represent the demographics of the community. In general, most observers would probably rate the representation of people from different parts of the community on the Action Teams as anywhere from "good to excellent." Nonetheless, participants in the Action Teams evaluated tend to be middle aged, well educated and mostly White.[2] Would the opportunity to address violence issues in minority communities be enhanced if participation by persons of color increased? Would the effectiveness of the Initiative increase if it could recruit more older and younger people into Action Teams?
The Initiative needs to continue the involvement of educators in the Education Action Team and increase the involvement of clergy in the Interfaith Team.
The Action Teams should consider developing ways to raise their visibility with groups such as principals, pastors, human resources professionals, and so on. If these staff had greater familiarity with the teams, they might be more likely to turn to the teams when they needed help with violence prevention activities. They would also have greater inclination to participate in forums and other activities put on by the teams.
The Initiative might want to examine why some members become "inactive." Should and could anything be done to retain these people in the "active" category?
Overall, the Gun Violence Action Team seems to be moving in the right direction by adding more community-based activities to its current efforts. The team needs to identify new goals and sub-goals that are relevant, purposeful and achievable. It also needs to keep members involved. If the team can accomplish the former, it can probably also accomplish the latter.
The Interfaith Team must focus its efforts on raising the religious community's awareness of violence, in order to establish with clergy and others that a need exists for the team's services. The team should also increase its visibility among clergy and other decision makers, so the Interfaith Team is thought of as a resource to address family violence.
The Initiative should consider increasing its efforts at gathering, analyzing, and reporting information about community issues. This will improve the ability of Action Teams to build community awareness; and heightened awareness will, in turn, improve the Action Teams' chances for success.
Activities of the Initiative should be well-informed, and research-driven, as much as possible. For example, Action Team members who plan forums or develop brochures should research the most effective formats for presenting information, and should, through careful research, identify the most appropriate level of information to present. The Initiative should go beyond simply gathering information, and should spend time analyzing and synthesizing it, and then should base decisions on this analysis and synthesis. The Initiative should also develop a record-keeping system that could be used by all teams to keep uniform records of activities and accomplishments.
Final Comments
The Initiative, so far, seems to work. It can sustain the motivation of participants. It can accomplish tasks. It seems to have the ability to attain the "intermediate level impacts" it seeks changing policies, implementing programs, and influencing the knowledge and behaviors of key individuals related to education, the workplace, the faith community and so on. Based on this experience, it appears the Initiative merits continued effort, at least as long as violence remains an issue in Ramsey County, and at least until enough time has passed to see whether the Initiative seems to produce long term benefits.[3].
In 1996, Ramsey County invited Wilder Research Center (WRC) to conduct an evaluation of The Initiative for Violence Free Families and Communities in Ramsey County. This group, often simply called "The Initiative," represents a community-wide effort to prevent family violence in the county. When WRC began the evaluation, the Initiative had existed for about five years. Ramsey County requested an evaluation of the Initiative for several reasons:
To document the activities and accomplishments of the Initiative.
To understand the potential value of replicating, in other programs or in other communities, the unique model on which the Initiative is based.
To understand whether the Initiative is on the right track to achieve its long term goals.
To provide feedback to members of the Initiative about their efforts: What has worked, and what has not worked; which needs in the community the Initiative addresses; and which needs it misses or does not address effectively.
To learn how well Ramsey County played its role as coordinator and facilitator of the Initiative.
This evaluation report provides information which addresses all of the above areas. With respect to the past, the report serves as documentation of what has occurred. With respect to the future, the report offers opportunities to learn from experience how to improve the Initiative and how to apply its methods to other issues.
The report has the following format:
Description of the Initiative as a whole:
Introduction: An overview of the history and development of the Initiative and of the assumptions underlying the Initiative. A description of the approach taken in this evaluation. And, a capsule sketch of each of the five Action Teams included in the evaluation.
Activities and Accomplishments of the Action Teams: A summary of the major "products" of the Action Teams included in the evaluation.
Opinions and Perceptions among Action Team Members: The results of a survey of 123 members of five Action Teams, regarding their participation, their satisfaction, the views regarding accomplishments of the teams, and their recommendations for improvement.
Focus on each Action Team:
Discussion of the impacts thus far of the teams involved in the evaluation, along with recommendations for each team
Education Action Team
Gun Violence Action Team
Interfaith Action Team
Media Action Team
Workplace Action Team
Discussion and general recommendations for the Initiative:
The "Community Building" Characteristics of the Initiative
Implications for Replication
Other Observations and Suggestions for the Future
Note that recommendations from the research staff appear in two places. Recommendations most relevant for specific teams appear at the end of the review of each team's impacts. Recommendations involving more general lessons, whether learned by specific teams or by the Initiative as a whole, appear in the final section of the report.
Along with completing the evaluation of the Action Teams, Wilder Research Center also consulted with the Initiative to identify indicators of violence in Ramsey County. This effort led to development of A Guide to Community Indicators which provides the Initiative with a tool to monitor levels of violence in the community. The work by Wilder and Ramsey County on this guide is not described in this report.[4]
The Initiative for Violence Free Families and Communities in Ramsey County has developed over the course of about six years, and it continues to operate as a grass-roots, community-wide effort to prevent violence in Ramsey County. In October of 1991, Ramsey County held a forum for over 200 community members and leaders, to start this process. The forum, entitled "Encountering Family Violence: A Day to Begin Change," led to the development of eight Action Teams, which met over the next six months to create a Community Action Plan for the Ramsey County community.
The following May, the group re-convened. It officially unveiled the Community Action Plan; and it publicized a commitment to create collaborative partnerships among community members, agencies in the community, and Ramsey County in order to achieve a common vision: the elimination of family violence in Ramsey County. The Community Action Plan identified missions and specific objectives for the teams involved, and it invited readers to join the collaboration. The group intended to continue collaborating after the forums in order to achieve the goals set by the Action Teams. The general goals of the Community Action Plan were to:
Establish a "no violence" standard in the public mind;
Greatly increase the effectiveness of programs to prevent family violence;
Greatly increase the effectiveness of intervention in the inter-generational cycle of family abuse; and
Build a strong foundation to sustain these efforts into the future.
Over the last six years, the Initiative has grown and changed, adding new teams and undertaking new activities. The initial Action Teams, developed in 1991, consisted of:
Child Abuse Prevention Council
Intervention Action Team
Legislative Action Team
Media Action Team
Neighborhoods and Citizens Action Team
Inter-Religious Task Force
Education/Schools Action Team
Workplace Action Team
Since then, several teams have changed names and focus areas, while other teams have emerged. As of January 1, 1997, the following Action Teams belong to the Initiative:
Child Abuse Prevention Council
Latino-Chicano Community Action Team
Education Action Team
Leadership Action Team
Evaluation Action Team
Media Action Team
Foundations for Children
Neighborhood Anti-Violence Team
Gun Violence Action Team
Public Policy Action Team
Higher Education Action Team
Strong Hearts of the Circle
Hmoob Thaj Yeeb (Hmong Peace)
Workplace Action Team
Imani (Faith) Action Team
Youth Violence Prevention Initiative
Inter-Faith Action Team
Community members, who have an interest in working on a specific type of violence prevention, make up each Action Team. Each team operates somewhat differently, but for the most part, teams are comprised of members and one or two leaders. The leaders coordinate team meetings and meet with leaders from other teams monthly, as the Leadership Action Team. A Ramsey County staff person also attends each team meeting, providing administrative resources and acting as a peripheral member, rather than directing the team. Team members and leaders create the agenda and guide the selection of activities. The process is intended to be "owned" by the community members who participate. Some teams have "anchor organizations," businesses or agencies in the community who dedicate staff time and/or meeting space to the Initiative, supplementing the assistance that Ramsey County provides.
The assumptions behind the design of the Initiative, depicted in Figure 1, are that:
Community members will participate in Action Teams of their choice, to work on reducing violence within specific focus areas. Examples of focus areas for specific teams include churches (Interfaith Team), community groups and legislators (Gun Violence Team), the media (Media Team), schools (Education Team), and businesses (Workplace Team).
The activities of the Action Teams will influence people (often leaders or educators within a system) who belong to the focus areas of the teams.
People influenced by the teams, whether they are religious leaders; legislators; journalists; teachers; human resources staff; or something else, will then influence other people whom they contact (e.g., members of their organizations, colleagues, clients, or others.
Eventually, this influence will spread throughout the entire community. Attitudes about violence will change, awareness and knowledge about violence will increase, and violence in Ramsey County will decrease.
Initiative participants hope that their activities will sustain themselves over a number of years, to allow enough time for the long term reduction of violence to occur.
The above model suggests a hierarchy of potential impacts. For the impacts to occur, the teams must engage in some sort of activities and begin to deliver some "products."[5] Action Team members must learn something, acquire a skill, become motivated, make a commitment to action, or experience growth in some way in order for them to take the next steps their teams want to take. Action Team members must then take the next steps in order to produce an impact on key individuals in the focus areas. In turn, these key individuals will have to increase their efforts to reduce violence in order for the influence of the teams to permeate the system or group, and impact its members. If all goes as planned, improvement in the knowledge, attitudes and skills of community members should occur, with a resulting decrease in violence. This hierarchy is depicted in Figure 2.
Potential Impacts of the Initiative
5. Long-Term Impacts: Impacts on Individuals in Community: Knowledge, Attitudes, Skills Improve Violence Decreases
4. Intermediate and Long-Term Impacts: Impacts on Individuals who Participate in Or are Served by Systems or Focus Areas
3. Intermediate Impacts: Impacts on Leaders, Educators or Other People Involved in Systems or Focus Areas
2. Initial Impacts: Impacts on Members of Teams
1. Products Activities and Accomplishments of Teams
This evaluation looks at the initial and intermediate impacts of the Initiative during its first five years (the shaded areas in Figure 2). The Initiative's designers hope that, eventually, the Initiative will decrease violence in Ramsey County. However, such violence reduction probably will not happen, at least in a way that can be linked back to the Initiative, for a number of years after the inception of the Initiative. This evaluation assumes that five years does not offer enough time for the Initiative to have made a measurable impact on the community in general. Instead, it is more valuable to look at initial and intermediate impacts, to provide useful information for improvement.
Thus, the model for this evaluation included looking at five Action Teams over time, to accomplish the following:
Document and understand the process, activities and accomplishments of each team
Track the initial and intermediate impacts of the Action Teams
Assess the satisfaction of two sets of participants:
Participants in Action Teams
Recipients and/or potential recipients of the Action Teams' "products"[6]
The intention was to maintain a standardized model, but to customize it where necessary to best fit the work of each of the five Action Teams. In this way, we met the major goals of the evaluation. We documented the activities and accomplishments of each team; and we answered questions about replication, long term goals, effectiveness, and the role of Ramsey County.
The evaluation focused on five of the 17 Action Teams.[7] Following is a brief description of the five teams' goals, membership, structure, and anchor organizations (where applicable):
Education Action Team. The original mission of the Education Action Team, as stated in the Community Action Plan, was to "develop and implement a series of educational initiatives designed to end family violence." The mission identified sexual harassment and date rape as forms of violence that should be addressed. This team focuses mainly on schools in Ramsey County. For the most part, the Education Team does its work with schools serving grades K through 12, in the four suburban districts of Ramsey County (Roseville, White Bear Lake, Mounds View, North St. Paul/Maplewood/Oakdale) and St. Paul Public Schools (these school districts could be considered the anchor organizations of the Education Team). The team has done some work with higher education, but remains focused mainly on grades K through 12. The team is made up of representatives from area schools and other interested community members; and meets monthly. The team provides the opportunity for districts to collaborate in planning and to share information. They have used their collaborative power to secure grants and to disseminate information to large groups of students and teachers.
Gun Violence Action Team. The Gun Violence Action Team (GVAT) is the only team in this evaluation that did not exist when the Initiative first developed its Community Action Plan. The GVAT began meeting in 1993. At that time, its main focus was on changing legislation. The team lobbied for laws that would restrict access to handguns and reduce gun trafficking to people not qualified to use guns. In 1995, the team began to focus more on empowering the community to get involved in legislation. They worked toward community outreach, legislative advocacy, and education. They began hosting community forums, and working toward improving information available on the impacts of gunshot wounds, both through a large grant from the Joyce Foundation. In 1998, the GVAT's focus has shifted further from its original legislative focus, and has become largely an effort to raise public awareness and increase public safety, from a public health perspective. The team, which meets monthly, is made up of professionals who work in systems related to gun violence (for example, probation, law enforcement) and other interested community members. Its anchor organization is the Minnesota Institute of Public Health.
Interfaith Action Team. The Interfaith Action Team, originally called the Inter-Religious Task Force, set forth its initial goals in the Community Action Plan as "developing a communication network among religious communities in the prevention of family violence", and "developing a plan and resources to engage clergy, lay leaders in a process of self-evaluation to increase awareness and reduce family violence." They work to raise awareness and break down the denial that is typically found in religious organizations regarding family violence. Another goal is to educate clergy on how to respond to violence in families in their congregations. The Interfaith Team attempts to include all religions in its work. The team meets monthly, and is comprised of individuals from religious communities who have an interest in reducing family violence in their own and other religious communities. Its anchor organization is the St. Paul Area Council of Churches. The team works with Congregations Concerned for Children through the St. Paul Area Council of Churches to disseminate some of its information.
Media Action Team. The Media Action Team listed goals in the Community Action Plan as: "Using media as positive educational tools"; and "influencing the media to stop using negative, violent images in advertising." The team has both a proactive and a reactive component, building relationships with media in a proactive fashion, and responding to existing negative imagery in media in a reactive fashion. Additionally, it produces materials for various audiences, including a recent set of materials for parents (created by a spin-off group of the media team) and a crisis telephone line dedicated to men (created by another spin-off group). The team is made up of people from both Hennepin and Ramsey counties, from many professions, who have an interest in reducing violence. They meet monthly. The Media Team's anchor organization is Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
Workplace Action Team. The Workplace Action Team stated three goals in the Community Action Plan. They are: "To promote a violence free workplace campaign; establish, define and promote the Family Friendly Workplace concept; and to educate employers, union leadership and members, and other employee groups regarding family violence issues and enlist their support in all workplace violence prevention efforts." Over the years, they have held forums for staff at a variety of organizations. They have also developed a number of training tools related to how violence impacts the workplace. The team is comprised of people from Hennepin and Ramsey counties, who are interested in the issue of workplace violence, or hold a position where these issues arise. They meet monthly. The anchor organizations of the Workplace Action Team are: Minnegasco; the Dispute Resolution Center; Sand Creek Group (fiscal agent); and Family Service.
To document the activities of each team over the last five years, we collected as much information as possible about each team. This effort included the following steps:
Interviewing the current leader of each team.
Visiting at least one meeting of each team.
Collecting all brochures and other products created by the team (through team leaders and Ramsey County staff).
Creating a list of each event or product, and then having team leaders and Ramsey County staff review the list for completeness.
Obtaining any records available (from Ramsey County staff) on the number of participants or recipients of each activity or item, and compiling these records.
Meeting with Ramsey County staff to discuss each item, find out correct dates, and learn about any additional activity related to each item.
Most activity documentation for this evaluation study took place between March and September of 1997.[8] We attempted to note developments since September, 1997 as they came up, but followed the above six steps only through September.
In Appendix A, we list each activity, by team, along with the following information:
Type of Activity
Brief Description of Activity
Dates
Goal of Activity
Attendance or Distribution
Supporting Partners and/or Sponsors
Additional Comments/Further Documentation of Goal Achievement
Table 1 summarizes the dates and types of 67 activities of the five teams evaluated. These activities vary a great deal in scope and in intensity. Some items listed in Appendix A as one "activity" are actually a series of activities, listed together because they are related.
Table 1. Table 1: Summary of Activities
| Information | Category | Number of Activities[a] |
|---|---|---|
| Years Activities Were Completed | 1992 | 4 |
| 1993 | 13 | |
| 1994 | 18 | |
| 1995 | 13 | |
| 1996 | 18 | |
| 1997 | 14[b] | |
| Types of Activities | Collaboration[c] | 3 |
| Grant | 3 | |
| Information Source | 27 | |
| Public Relations or Media Event | 12 | |
| Forum or Training | 14 | |
| Hands-on-Experience | 1 | |
| Legislation or Lobbying | 3 | |
| Arts Event | 3 | |
| Survey and Report | 1 | |
| Spin-Off Group | 2 | |
[a] The Activities Documentation in Appendix A lists 67 activities. Several activities are listed together but occurred more than one time, and are counted in more than one year. One activity was ongoing, with no date available. 2 more activities had no date available, and one activity was in progress. None of these was counted in the year section. Also, some activities fit into more than one "type of activity" category, and are counted twice. [b] While we attempted to document all activities we learned about in 1997, some (especially those implemented in the last quarter of 1997) may not have been implemented at the time of data collection, and therefore would not have been counted. [c] Most activities involved some collaboration. Activities were only counted as collaboration if it was the team's primary role in the activity (for example, if a team helped facilitate something that was actually an accomplishment of some other group). | ||
As noted in Table 1, activities appear to have occurred fairly evenly across time, since the inception of the Initiative.[9] Most activities fall into the categories of "information sources" or "forums/trainings." These continue to be popular ways for each team to disseminate information and increase awareness.
Generally, information source activities are brochures or pamphlets created and distributed by an Action Team. One clear advantage of a brochure is that it offers a concrete, observable achievement, allowing a team to complete it and move on to something else. This probably explains why information sources are the most popular type of activity among Initiative teams. Once a brochure is developed, it can reach a large number of people with little time and effort. Appendix A lists details on all brochures and other information sources, and explains how they were distributed.
Although the 68 activities listed in Appendix A represent a great deal of work on the part of each Action Team, they do not represent an exhaustive documentation of the Initiative's accomplishments. One of the most important accomplishments of the Initiative, across teams,in the minds of members and staff, is the way the group networks people together and allows community members to find out about what others are doing to prevent violence. Simply by attending meetings, members have the opportunity to discuss upcoming events, current issues, and ideas for solving problems, with professionals and community members from a variety of perspectives.
Additionally, many more activities appear to have occurred with at least some help from an Action Team. The teams collaborated with a large number of outside groups to conduct activities. We tried to list only the activities where a team either played the main role in the accomplishment, or was an instrumental part of a collaboration to accomplish it. Additional activities did occur, but were completed mainly by another group, with help from teams.
Summary
Active and inactive members of five teams completed telephone interviews about their experiences and satisfaction with the Initiative.
Members most commonly identified their workplace, their friends, and their colleagues as their original source of information about the Initiative. The most common reasons for joining a team were: the desire to address a specific type of violence; the desire to address violence in general; and the desire to learn about violence issues.
An interest in violence issues and a desire to network with others interested in violence provided the most common motivation to attend meetings. Reasons for missing meetings included a lack of time and scheduling conflicts.
About half of the respondents had attended at least one event planned by their team in the last year, and half had participated in the planning of a product, event or project in the last year.
Nearly all members felt their team had at least had a "slightly positive impact on the community." A third felt the impact was "far reaching and positive."
Across teams, members listed "community outreach" and "people from different backgrounds working together" as the teams' most important accomplishments.
Members felt their teams had worked together effectively, and had made decisions in a satisfactory manner. Most members felt they had at least some influence in decision making, and that other team members listened to and accepted new ideas.
Members expressed a high level of satisfaction with team leadership.
Nearly all members felt that Ramsey County staff participation had affected their team in a positive manner, and that the County as an organization played a helpful role.
Wilder Research Center staff conducted a telephone interview with 123 members of the five teams.[10] The interview asked questions about members' participation in the Initiative, their satisfaction with the process and structure of their team, and their opinions about the role Ramsey County plays in the Initiative. We also asked several open-ended questions about accomplishments of the teams, efforts that were not successful, and recommendations for improvement.
Both active and inactive members of the five teams in the evaluation completed interviews. Ramsey County staff who have participated in the Initiative since its inception identified the active/inactive status of each member. Active members were:
Members who attended meetings regularly;
Members who attended meetings occasionally and kept up on events; or
Members who didn't attend meetings but regularly used resources and kept up on events, and were available to help with certain events or products.
Inactive members were those whose names appear on a team's mailing list, but who did not participate in any of the above ways. We oversampled, or intentionally selected more, active members, in order to get information from people who had more directly experienced the Initiative. From each team's most updated mailing list, we randomly selected fifteen percent of the members identified as inactive, and 67 percent of the members identified as active. This resulted in a sample of 150 out of the 483 members who were listed on team mailing lists.
Of those 150 selected for the interview:
123 (82%) completed interviews. Seventy-four percent of the 123 were active members, and 26 percent were inactive;
18 (12%) refused the interview because they felt they didn't know enough about the Initiative to be of help; and
9 (6%) could not be located, or were not available for the interview.
A complete listing of the number of members from each team who completed the interview appears in Appendix B.[11]
Background Characteristics
Of the members who completed the interview, 17 percent had joined within the first two years of the Initiative (1991 or 1992). About a fourth of the interviewees had joined in 1993 or 1994, and 57 percent had joined in 1995 or later.
5 percent were under the age of 30, 63 percent were between ages 31 and 50, 27 percent were between 51 and 65, and 5 percent were over 65.
In terms of cultural background, interviewees were, by-and-large, White.[12] Eighty-nine percent of members interviewed were White. Five percent were Black. One interviewee (less than 1 percent) was Hispanic, Latino or Chicano. One person was Asian or Pacific Islander; and one person was Native American. Four percent (5 people) said they were either of mixed race or from some other group.
About 90 percent of the members interviewed had at least a college education. Sixty-nine percent of the interviewees had both completed college and had done at least some graduate work. Another 21 percent said they were college graduates, and 7 percent had completed some post-secondary education. Two percent of interviewees (3 people) had a high school diploma; and one person (less than 1 percent) had less than a high school education.
Members had originally heard about the Initiative in a variety of ways. Information in the workplace was the most common source: 42 percent of the 121 people who remembered how they first learned of their team said they did so through work. Another 30 percent responded that they learned of their team through a friend or colleague. Seven percent of the respondents said they first heard of the Initiative through a religious organization. Other ways of finding out about an Action Team[13] included the media; other Action Teams; other members; other organizations; and independently, either as a founding member or otherwise.
Members answered a question about why they became involved in their Action Team. About one-third said they became involved because they wanted to address violence in the specific area that their team focuses on. About a fourth said they joined mainly because they were interested in violence issues in general. Twenty percent said they became involved in order to understand the causes of violence. Twelve percent of members joined their team because it was related to their job, and about 10 percent joined so they could learn what others are doing to address violence. Other responses, given by one or two people, included joining because they were asked to do so, and an interest in using the program as a model for another county.
For all five Action Teams involved in the evaluation, meetings occur on a monthly basis. Everyone on the mailing list for a team receives a meeting notice, but usually only a fraction of the members attend a given meeting. Some people attend each meeting, while others attend only when they see something interesting or work related on the agenda. The teams' cultures are such that meeting attendance is welcomed but by no means compulsory. Long-time members might go through periods of high activity with a team, and periods of relative absence from meetings. Generally, members identified as inactive did not attend meetings as much as active members. Because these two types of members are different in their general commitment to the team, we have reported their participation rates separately:
Meeting Attendance
As expected, active and inactive members differed significantly on how often they were attending meetings at the time of the interview. Three quarters of the 32 members identified as inactive said they "never" attend meetings, while only 23 percent of the active members were "never" attending meetings when they responded to the interview. By the same token, a higher percentage of active members were attending meetings "whenever they are scheduled" than were inactive members. Forty-three percent of active members attended meetings regularly, whereas only 3 (9%) of the members classified as inactive were attending regularly at the time of the interview. About a third of active members and 16 percent of inactive members said they attend meetings "occasionally," or only when their concerns are on the agenda.
When asked how many meetings they had attended in the last year, active and inactive members again differed in their responses. Twenty-nine percent of active members said they had attended more than 9 meetings in the last year, while about half had attended between 1 and 8 meetings. Eighteen percent of active members had not attended a meeting in the last year. All inactive members said they had attended less than 8 meetings in the last year, with about 60 percent saying they had not attended a single meeting in the last year.
The interview asked for the most important reason members attend meetings (88 members who said they had attended at least 1 meeting in the last year answered this question). Active and inactive members did not differ significantly on this question. The most important reasons (selected by about three quarters of the 88 respondents) were an interest in violence issues and a desire to network with others interested in violence issues.
The 48 respondents who said they rarely attend meetings answered an open-ended question about the main reason they miss meetings. Sixty-three percent of these 48 respondents said the main reason they don't attend meetings is either a lack of time or the fact that meetings are not at convenient times. Ten percent said they "lost interest" in the team, and 8 percent said someone else from their office attends the meetings in their place. Other reasons members listed[14] included a lack of leadership in the team, the fact that the member is only interested in the resources provided by the team, relocation, and switching to another team.
Event planning and attendance
55 percent of the respondents said they had attended at least one special event planned by their team in the last year. A larger percentage of active members (64%) had attended events than had inactive members (31%).
About half of all respondents had participated in the planning of at least one product, event, or other project for their team in the last year. As expected, active members had participated significantly more than inactive members. Two thirds of active members had helped with a project, while only 13 percent of members identified as inactive had participated in this way.
After hearing a brief listing of examples of their teams accomplishments, respondents rated their general satisfaction with their team's accomplishments. The average rating, on a scale of one to ten, with ten being extremely satisfied, was eight. Ninety-six percent of the respondents who answered this question rated their satisfaction with accomplishments at a six or higher.
Members answered a question about the extent of the impact of their team on the community. Eight people (7 percent) did not answer, either due to lack of knowledge, or because they refused. Of the 115 who responded, 36 percent felt that their team's activities had produced a "far reaching, positive impact on the community." Another 63 percent felt their team's activities had produced a "slightly positive impact on the community." One person (1 percent) did not feel the team had impacted the community at all.
Most Important Accomplishments
Members answered an open-ended question about what they believed was the single most important accomplishment of their team. Responses varied in their specificity. 118 people answered this question, while five individuals stated that they did not know their team's most important accomplishment. Tables 2a through 2f summarize the responses, which were either team-specific, or more general:
Table 2. Table 2a: Accomplishments Mentioned by Members Across Teams
| Percent of 118 Respondents | |
|---|---|
| Community Outreach | 25% |
| People From Different Backgrounds Working Together | 12% |
| Agencies Within the County Cooperating | 5% |
| Workshops (General Comment) | 6% |
| Video Tapes or Instructional Materials (General Comment | 8% |
| Play or Musical on Non-Violence (This includes at least two different productions, one put on by the Interfaith Team, and one by the Workplace Team) | 8% |
Table 3. Table 2b: Accomplishments Mentioned Only By Education Team Members
| Percent of 17 Respondents | |
|---|---|
| Coaches's Code of Conduct | 24% |
Table 4. Table 2c: Accomplishments Mentioned Only By Interfaith Team Members
| Percent of 21 Respondents | |
|---|---|
| Resource Center/Library | 14% |
Table 5. Table 2d: Accomplishments Mentioned Only By Gun Violence Team Members
| Percent of 19 Respondents | |
|---|---|
| Empowering Citizens | 5% |
| Legislative Lobbying- Gun Issues | 26% |
| Joyce Foundation Grant | 11% |
| Focusing Groups | 5% |
Table 6. Table 2e: Accomplishments Mentioned Only By Media Team Members
| Percent of 24 Respondents | |
|---|---|
| Magnets and Posters/Parenting Materials | 14% |
| Media Campaign: Commericals, Non-Violent Advertising, Public Service Announcements, Media Guide | 50% |
| Role Models Booklet | 8% |
Table 7. Table 2f: Accomplishments Mentioned Only By Workplace Team Members
| Percent of 37 Respondents | |
|---|---|
| Domestic Violence Training | 3% |
| Workplace Violence Awareness (Training Sessions, Workbook) | 27% |
Efforts That Did Not Result in Success
The interview also included an open-ended question asking, "Please give me an example of an idea or a plan that did not end up resulting in an accomplishment or a success. Please try to be as specific as possible." Members' responses generally referred to a specific plan or effort, but they varied in their relevance to the team and their level of importance.
85 respondents, or 69 percent, said they could not think of anything. This included people who said they were not familiar enough with their team to know of any failed plans, and people who simply didn't think their team had ever been unsuccessful at following through on a plan.
Examples of ideas or plans that did not result in success, and responses to a follow-up question about recommendations for improvement, included:[15]
Education Team:
"We haven't formulated the messages to put on Rainbow Foods Monitors. We haven't pursued that. We haven't decided on a message."
What could have been done differently to make this idea result in an accomplishment? "Time."
"We wanted to get kids from each school in Ramsey County who work in newspaper to write something every month in their school newspapers, but that didn't take off"
What could have been done differently to make this idea result in an accomplishment? "Just more time. It's hard to get it all done."
Gun Violence Team:
"Generally, we talked about a number of issues for legislation. They have not become law."
What could have been done differently to make this idea result in an accomplishment? "I'm not sure. The political environment is not receptive to change."
"Building a statewide lobbying network."
What could have been done differently to make this idea result in an accomplishment? "More lead time and greater understanding of the legislative process."
Inter-Faith Team:
"We tried having a resource fair and hardly anybody came. It was probably two years ago. We have gathered resources about violence prevention that different faith communities have used. We have tried to loan out those materials."
What could have been done differently to make this idea result in an accomplishment? "The big question is how to get people involved when they aren't interested. What works better is when we go and put out our stuff at some bigger gathering that is drawing people."
"We've been unhappy at the small number of clergy that attend our events. Congregational mentoring was used to try to get more clergy involved. It's early in the stages, but right now, I'm hesitant to claim it is not working."
What could have been done differently to make this idea result in an accomplishment? No Response.
Media Team:
"We are still working on the reporters' and editors' guide and I'm not sure if it is ever going to materialize. We started working on it about a year and a half ago."
What could have been done differently to make this idea result in an accomplishment? "Money. More funding."
"So far we have not been able to get either of the major newspapers to withdraw their strip-joint ads from the sports section. We are still in the process now."
What could have been done differently to make this idea result in an accomplishment? "Nothing. I think we handled it well."
Workplace Team:
"The mentoring aspects of smaller companies. To mentor companies on violence prevention. Last October we started briefly talking about it."
What could have been done differently to make this idea result in an accomplishment? "There are people that come and there are action people. I think the action percentage has not increased as needed."
"End of last year we were planning on having a retreat, employer groups getting together to share information. It would have allowed them to share ideas about how to deal with these issues."
What could have been done differently to make this idea result in an accomplishment? "We just had too much on our plate. Doing a better job of prioritizing our objectives."
Respondents rated how effectively they believed Action Team members had worked together. No respondents gave a negative rating. Sixty-three percent said members had worked together "very well." Another 30 percent gave members' working together a moderate rating of "somewhat well." The other 7 percent of members (most of whom were inactive members) did not know how well members had worked together.
When asked about their satisfaction with the decision making process of their team, slightly more than half of the respondents said they were "very satisfied." Another 30 percent were "somewhat satisfied." Four percent of respondents, all of whom were active members, said they were "not too satisfied"with their team's decision making process. Eleven percent (most of whom were inactive members) said they did not know enough about the decision making process to rate it.
73 percent of all respondents felt they had at least some influence on their team's decision making. Twenty-seven percent of members interviewed said they felt they had "no influence whatsoever"on the decisions made by their team. Of this 27 percent, 61 percent were inactive members and 39 percent were active members. Because the sample included more active members, the 27 percent who felt they had "no influence whatsoever"constitutes 65 percent of all inactive members who were interviewed, and only 14 percent of all active members. This relationship is displayed in Figure 3.
Respondents rated how much other team members were willing to consider new suggestions. Sixty-one percent of the 105 members who answered this item said other members were "very responsive to new ideas." Thirty-eight percent rated other members as "somewhat responsive." Only 1 percent said other members were "not at all responsive to new ideas." Fourteen percent of respondents didn't answer the question, saying they didn't know how open to suggestions their fellow members were. More inactive than active members said they didn't know.
Nearly all respondents (97 percent of the 110 who answered the question) said they were at least somewhat satisfied with the leadership of their team so far. Seventy-two percent were "very satisfied." Three percent (or 3 people) said they were "somewhat dissatisfied"with the leadership of their team so far. Eleven percent of the 123 respondents did not answer the question, due to lack of knowledge of their team. More inactive members than active members weren't able to answer this item.
When asked if the group would have performed better with more or less leadership, 79 percent of the 99 people who responded were satisfied with the leadership of their team. Twenty percent said the team could have benefited from more leadership, while 1 percent felt that less leadership would have allowed the team to perform better. Twenty-four respondents (or 16 percent of the total sample) did not know enough about their team to answer the question.[16]
Almost all respondents (98 percent of the sample) were aware that Ramsey County was the organization behind the Initiative.[17]
Respondents answered a question about what role they saw Ramsey County staff playing on the teams. Forty-three percent[18] said they would describe the role of Ramsey County staff as leaders. Another 21 percent saw staff as members, just like themselves. Eighteen percent believed the Ramsey County staff's role was mainly administrative support. Seventeen percent said they saw Ramsey County staff as some combination of members, leaders, and administrative support. About 10 percent said they saw Ramsey County staff as "coordinators." Again, several respondents, mainly inactive, said they did not know enough about the Initiative to answer this question.
When asked to rate the effect Ramsey County staff participation had on their team, most (96 percent of the 109 who answered) said the staff had a positive effect on their team's functioning. 4 percent said staff participation had no effect on team functioning.
Consistent with the above findings, virtually everyone felt that the role that Ramsey County, as an organization, played in the Initiative was helpful. Two percent said Ramsey County was neither helpful nor not helpful.
Members answered an open-ended question asking how Ramsey County might have been a more helpful part of the Initiative. Responses listed by more than one person are listed in Table 3.[19]
Table 8. Table 3: Members' Ideas of What Else Ramsey County Could Have Done to Help the Initiative
| Suggestion | Percent of 105 Respondents[a] |
|---|---|
| Nothing | 56% |
| Provide More Money | 15% |
| More Staff Time | 13% |
| More Outreach | 11% |
| Be More Assertive | 4% |
| Ensure Meetings Run Smoothly | 3% |
[a] Members could list more than one suggestion. Because 56 percent listed "nothing", the rest of the responses came from 44 percent of the 105 respondents. Percentages throughout the table are based on the 105 respondents. | |
As described earlier, participants in the Initiative base their work upon a model in which each Action Team, after energizing and/or educating its own members, attempts to influence groups or individuals within a specific focus area. In turn, these individuals influence others, and ultimately, the entire community experiences some benefit from the work of the team.
The Activities Documentation reported earlier describes what the teams did and created; the Member Interview describes the influence the Initiative had on members. The evaluation of intermediate impacts looks to the next level, to assess the impacts the teams are starting to have on groups or individuals within their focus areas.
Wilder Research Center staff completed telephone interviews with key individuals expected to be influenced by the work of the Education Team, the Interfaith Team, or the Workplace Team. To get an accurate representation of a given team's impacts, we needed a representative sampling of the focus areas of each team. In the case of the Education and Interfaith Teams, we took an entire group (for example, all public schools in Ramsey County, or all religious organizations in Ramsey County), whether they were known to have had contact with the team or not, and randomly selected a sample of individuals to interview from that group.[20] This ensured that our interview responses represented the group the team was trying to impact, including both actual recipients of a team's "services" and potential recipients.
In the case of the Workplace Team, however, we selected our sample from lists of people who had been in contact with the team, or "actual recipients,"because the business community is a less-defined group than "schools"or "religious organizations,"and it would have been virtually impossible to design an instrument that was sensitive enough to detect impacts made across the entire business community had we selected randomly from all businesses.
The other two teams, the Gun Violence Team (GVAT) and the Media Team, fit the Initiative model. However, for several reasons (described in the sections related to these teams), it was not realistic to look at the intermediate impacts of these two teams in the same way. The GVAT focuses on the Legislature and community groups; and the Media Team focuses on media organizations, and on creating media for various specific groups.
The next sections of this report include results from the telephone interviews of the Education Team, the Interfaith Team and the Workplace Team, along with comments on the Gun Violence Action Team and the Media Team. Each set of interviews included between 30 and 40 people.[21] The goal with this piece of the evaluation was to get a general sense of the impacts of the team and of the climate related to violence prevention in different areas. In these sections, we also include recommendations for each team, based on these interviews and other data collected in the evaluation.
Summary
37 Assistant Principals and Principals from elementary, middle, and high schools in Ramsey County completed telephone interviews.
A small percentage of respondents were aware of their school's contact with the team. Of these, all said the team had caused their school to change or add to its violence prevention efforts. All said the team had provided resources for violence prevention, and all felt the team's contribution to their school's efforts was at least "somewhat important."
Some respondents who stated no awareness of the Education Team actually recognized some of the team's products. The most-recognized product was the Root Causes of Violence brochure. All respondents who recognized it gave this brochure a positive rating.
Respondents from suburban school districts listed examples of how they had used the Community Violence Prevention Council Grants obtained through the Education Team. The most common uses of the grants included: hiring a violence prevention coordinator; adding a drug free education program; general improvement due to increased funds; and more focused efforts due to increased funds.
Respondents listed 35 outside organizations who had helped their schools with Violence Prevention. Among these, 18 were strongly involved with work of the Education Team, and 4 were at least peripherally involved with the team's work.
Overall, respondents indicated that schools in Ramsey County have a high level of awareness related to violence, and that schools address violence throughout their programs. Many of the efforts to address violence were implemented during the time since the Education Team's inception.
Overall, results indicate that the Education Team offers fairly important resources to schools.
The team's impact might increase if people in decision-making roles, such as principals and assistant principals, had greater awareness of the team and considered it a resource. Currently, much of the team's work is funneled through front-line staff, thus missing administrators.
Awareness and action related to violence prevention appear to exist in schools. The Education Team might consider acting to improve the quality of the schools' approaches to violence prevention.
We interviewed 37 Assistant Principals and Principals from elementary, middle, and high schools in Ramsey County, to assess the impact the Education Team had on schools. We also asked questions about current programming in the schools, other groups (aside from the Initiative) that had helped with violence prevention, and needs for additional programming. These questions obtained information to understand the current status of violence prevention activities in schools, regardless of whether the interview respondent was aware of the Education Team. We took this approach because it seemed likely that the Education Team may have played a fairly silent role in its work with schools, and respondents may be unaware of the team's name or origins, whether or not they have used it as a resource.
Which school districts participated in the Education Team principal interview?
We interviewed 37 assistant principals and principals of elementary, middle, and high schools from all five school districts in Ramsey County.
Generally, we tried to sample about half of the elementary schools, half of the middle schools, and half of the high schools, in each district.[22] Table 4 shows the distribution of schools and districts we selected for the sample. All but one of the 38 selected schools completed the interview.
Table 9. Table 4: Ratio of Schools Selected for Interview to Total Number of Schools in District (Percentages in Parentheses)
| District | Elementary Schools | Middle Schools | High Schools |
|---|---|---|---|
| St. Paul | 7/50 (14%) | 5/9 (56%) | 3/7 (43%) |
| Roseville | 3/7 (43%) | 1/1 (100%) | 1/1[a] (100%) |
| Mounds View | 4/8 (50%) | 2/3 (67%) | 1/2 (50%) |
| White Bear Lake | 4/8 (50%) | 1/2 (50%) | 1/2 (50%) |
| North St. Paul, Maplewood, Oakdale | 3/6 (50%) | 1/2 (50%) | 1/1 (100%) |
| Total All Districts | 21/79 (26%) | 10/17 (59%) | 7/13 (54%) |
| TOTAL SELECTED: 38/109 (34%) | |||
[a] The one high school in Roseville was selected, but did not complete the interview. All other selected schools completed the interview. | |||
What kind of contact have schools had with the Education Action Team? How has this contact been helpful? How could it be more helpful?
We assessed the contact schools had with the Education Team from several different angles, because we expected that a direct question about the team might not yield recognition from the respondent, even if their school had been in contact with the team. The Education Team, along with most other Initiative Action Teams, often plays a relatively silent role in violence prevention. Its goal is not to develop awareness of the team, but to develop awareness and skills regarding violence prevention. It goes through any channel available to achieve its goal, and some of these channels, particularly collaborations with other groups, don't allow for much recognition of the team itself. Thus, school staff may mention Education Team-related violence prevention activities or products without knowing they originated with the Education Team. To be as complete as possible, we took both the concrete approach of asking about the team itself, and the open-ended approach of asking about activities and products in general. Still, much of the work of the Education Team may go unrecognized, regardless of whether the team is making a sufficient impact on its focus area.
How did respondents answer specific questions about the Education Team?
3 of the 37 respondents (8 percent) knew for certain that their school had previously had contact with the Education Action Team. Although the Education Team has worked with more than 3 schools, apparently the assistant principals and principals of only 3 schools are aware of it. Results based on the answers of these three respondents should be treated with caution, because they represent the opinions of only a small fraction of this sample, and an even smaller fraction of the population of principals and assistant principals in Ramsey County.
All three of those respondents answered "yes"to a question asking whether the Education Team caused their school to change or add to their violence prevention efforts. They mentioned the following improvements resulting from contact with the Education Team: better definitions of violence; adding a student support system for violence victims; providing violence prevention materials for families; increasing the emphasis on violence prevention; and adding presentations on violence prevention.
All three respondents who said they were aware of their school's contact with the Education Team also said the Education Team had provided resources for use in violence prevention. They listed speakers, referrals, videos and seminars as examples of resources.
Two of the three respondents who knew about the Education Team's work with their school rated the team's contribution to the schools' efforts as "somewhat important." The other respondent felt the contribution was "very important." One respondent also provided a suggestion when asked an open-ended question about what the team could have changed to be more helpful. The suggestion was to focus on the individual school level, rather than the district level.
Did respondents recognize products or services provided by the Education Team, even if they were not aware of the team itself? If so, what were their reactions to some of these products or services?
We asked respondents if their school had distributed each of two brochures produced by the team: "Teachers, What do Role Models Look Like?"; and "Violence Hurts People, Families and Communities"(Root Causes). We also asked whether students had seen the musical, "What's the Matter With the World Today?" A very small number of principals and assistant principals were familiar with these products. Nevertheless, despite lack of awareness among principals and assistant principals, a brochure may have been used at some point, or students may have attended the play.[23]
For the Teachers/Role Model brochure, only 2 respondents (five percent), both of whom were also among the 3 who knew about the Education Team in the first place, were aware that they had used the brochure in their school. Both respondents rated the brochure as "somewhat helpful"as a resource for teachers.
The Root Causes brochure was familiar to almost 30 percent (or 11) of the 37 respondents, who said their schools had distributed it.[24] This indicates that the Education Team has reached more than the three schools whose principals were aware of the team's work.
Of the 11 respondents who said they had used the Root Causes brochure, 9 were able to rate the brochure as a source of consciousness-raising and awareness-raising (the other 2 did not respond to this question). Of these 9, 22 percent found the brochure "extremely helpful,"and 78 percent found it "somewhat helpful." No respondent gave a negative rating of the brochure.
Respondents from 2 schools (5 percent of the sample) were aware that their students had seen the musical play, "What's the Matter With the World Today?" One of these was a school that had not mentioned contact with the Education Team in the direct question about the Education Team working with a school, another indication that the work of the team is not necessarily visible to beneficiaries.
The two respondents who were aware of the musical had very different opinions about its worth. One rated the play as "extremely helpful"in teaching students about violence. The other rated the play as "not at all helpful."[25]
How did the suburban school districts benefit from the Community Violence Prevention Council Grants that they received with the help of the Education Action Team?
We asked the suburban district school principals about Community Violence Prevention Council Grants that they had received as a result of being part of the Education Team. These grants, described in greater detail in Appendix A, were awarded to the suburban district schools largely because they applied as a group, through the Education Team.
Eight principals were able to give specific examples of how the grants had been helpful to their school. Examples are listed in Table 5 below.
Table 10. Table 5: How Community Violence Prevention Grants Were Helpful
| Examples of How Community Violence Prevention Grants Were Helpful | Number of People Who Mentioned Example (percent out of 8 respondents in parentheses)* |
|---|---|
| Allowed for a district level coordinator or violence prevention coordinator | 2 (25%) |
| Allowed for a drug free education program | 2 (25%) |
| Allowed for performances by Climb Theater | 1 (12.5%) |
| Allowed for harassment programs | 1 (12.5%) |
| More conflict resolution programs | 1 (12.5%) |
| Fewer fights or conflicts in the school (as a result of programs) | 1 (12.5%) |
| Generally make things possible due to money | 4 (50%) |
| Allowed for a more focused effort | 2 (25%) |
*Percents can total more than 100 because respondents could list more than one example.
Did principals and assistant principals mention anything in open-ended questions about their violence prevention activities that indicated that the Education Team was helping them?
We asked if any outside organizations or community groups had been helpful in violence prevention in the schools. This open-ended question was intended to uncover any knowledge a principal or assistant principal may have of the Education Team's work, without being aware of the team itself. This information can also be used to find out what programs are doing work similar to the Education Team, for possible future collaboration or information-sharing.
81 percent, or 30 of the 37 respondents, said that other organizations or community groups had helped their school with violence prevention.
Several open-ended questions asked the respondent to list groups that had helped their school with violence prevention. Table 6 shows examples listed that may have been the result of efforts of the Education Action Team, or partnerships with the team. Education Team representatives from each suburban school district reviewed the full list of examples, and they identified examples where the Education Team was instrumental in either promoting, creating, or obtaining access to the program mentioned. These examples have a check mark in the middle column of Table 6. Other examples representatives recognized as related in a minor way to the Education Team have a check mark in the right hand column. Representatives only included programs that they agreed schools would not be using if the Education Team hadn't helped. No representative from the St. Paul schools was available to rate, so it is possible that programs mentioned only by St. Paul principals may not have been rated as related to the Education Team.
Table 11. Table 6: Open Ended Responses listed by Education Team Interviewees (Principals and Assistant Principals): Groups or Events That Helped With Violence Prevention Efforts*
| Groups or Events That May be Peripherally Involved with the Education Team | Groups or Events Listed by Respondents and Identified by Team Representatives as Involved with the Education Team | |
|---|---|---|
| Church Groups | X | |
| Climb Theater | X | |
| Family Resource Center | X | |
| Northwest Youth and Family Services | X | |
| Police | X | |
| SOS- Sexual Offense Services | X | |
| Wilder Community Assistance Program | X | |
| Shoreview Youth Coordinator | X | |
| Black Teens for Advancement | X | |
| PTA- Parent Teacher Association | X | |
| YMCA | X | |
| Invisible Walls | X | |
| Big Brothers/Sisters | X | |
| White Bear Community Council | X | |
| Stepping Stone Theater | X | |
| First Blood Theater | X | |
| E Community Family Services | X | |
| AWARE (Arming Women Against Rape and Endangerment) | X | |
| Partnership United Hospitals | X | |
| West 7th Community Center | X | |
| Jewish Community Center | X |
*Level of Involvement rated by Education Team leader and representatives from suburban Ramsey County school districts.
Groups listed as helpful to schools' violence prevention in some way that were not seen by Education Team leaders as related to the team's work were:
3M
Youth Service Bureau
BFI
Social Services
Boy Scouts
Ramsey County Action Program
DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education)
Violence Prevention Program
African American Support Groups
Healthstart
Fire Department
Kidwatch
Westco
What is the current status of violence prevention activities in the schools in Ramsey County?
We asked several questions about what is currently happening in schools related to violence prevention. As mentioned above, respondents listed outside organizations that had been helpful in this work. Additionally, they listed specific types of help they receive from these organizations.
Of the 18 respondents who were able to provide examples of help received from outside groups, 17 percent, or 3 respondents, gave an example of general violence prevention. Other examples provided by more than 1 respondent included money (mentioned by 17%); a respectful climate in the schools (mentioned by 17%); plays on violence (mentioned by 11%, or 2 respondents); and drug prevention (mentioned by 11%). Examples listed by one respondent (6%) each were: Chemical dependency counselors; help with racial issues; self-esteem program; suicide prevention; and anger management.
We also asked respondents whether they provide a set of specific, violence-related programs or services in their school. The following summarizes the responses to these items:[26]
78 percent of the 37 respondents said they provide training for staff members on violence issues.
92 percent said they include violence education and prevention in their curriculum.
95 percent of respondents said they have formal policies on dealing with perpetrators of violence at school. 87 percent said they have formal policies on dealing with victims of violent incidents.
62 percent said they involve parents in their violence prevention efforts.
92 percent of respondents said they have special programs and activities related to violence prevention.
51 percent said they have security personnel on school grounds or in the school building during the day.
57 percent of respondents reported that they employ a staff member who works at least part time on coordinating violence prevention efforts.
Finally, we asked principals their opinion of the level of effort put forth by their schools to address violence.
About half said that in the future, their school should put forth more effort toward dealing with violence issues. Forty-six percent said that in the future their school should maintain the same level of effort that is currently put forth toward violence effort.
How much collaboration on violence prevention occurs between schools and between districts in Ramsey County?
We also asked principals whether they knew about any collaboration between their school and other schools.
About one fourth of the respondents said their school collaborates "a lot"with other schools. Another fourth responded "not much at all" when asked how much they collaborate with other schools. About half responded that they collaborate "some."
40 percent of the respondents who said they collaborate at least some believed the collaboration makes "a lot"of difference in their efforts toward violence prevention, while slightly more than half thought it made "some difference." Eight percent of these respondents said that collaborating with other schools didn't make much difference at all.
More than three-fourths of the 23 respondents who knew enough about their school district's activities to answer this question said that their school district collaborates at least some with other districts. Of these, all respondents thought this collaboration made at least some difference in their violence prevention efforts.
Is there any indication that the schools' current violence prevention activities were implemented or changed since the Education Action Team's inception?
When we asked if schools provide a set of specific, violence-related programs or services (described above), we also found out whether these programs or services had been added or changed in a fundamental way since 1993. This question was designed to assess whether the climate surrounding violence prevention in the schools had changed since the inception of the Education Team in 1993. Additions to, or changes in, services cannot always be directly attributed to the Education Team. But if we see that attention has been paid to these programs during the team's existence, we can at least assume that schools are addressing the issues that the team supports, and at best consider the possibility that the Education Team has contributed to this. Some respondents could not answer these questions because they did not know the history of their school's programs and policies, having recently been hired or not remembering what year things happened. Most respondents who did answer confirmed that schools had changed the way they addressed violence during the lifetime of the Initiative.[27]
88 percent said that their school had changed or implemented violence training for staff since 1993.
Similarly, 93 percent said their school had fundamentally changed or implemented a violence education component in their school's curriculum since 1993.
Slightly more than three-fourths (81%) said they had changed or implemented formal policies on dealing with perpetrators of violence since 1993. About 3 quarters also said they had changed or implemented policies on dealing with victims of violence.
80 percent said they had changed or implemented parent involvement in violence prevention efforts since 1993.
87 percent said they had changed or implemented special programs or activities related to violence prevention since 1993.
Slightly more than two thirds said they had either fundamentally changed or implemented the policy of having security personnel on school grounds since 1993.
About 80 percent said they had fundamentally changed or implemented a staff position to include a staff member who works at least part time on violence prevention efforts.
We also asked principals to list the main differences between their schools' current approaches to violence, and those approaches used five years ago. They could list more than one example.
About 80 percent made a statement indicating that they believed their approach to violence prevention is more formalized and generally better than it was five years ago. Slightly less than two thirds also said they saw increased awareness of violence as a difference in their schools between now and five years ago. Another 10 percent said they involve families in violence prevention programming more now than five years ago. One respondent said they include staff education on violence prevention now, whereas they didn't educate staff about violence five years ago. Other examples given were specific programs that had been added recently.
What needs exist in Ramsey County for addressing violence in the schools?
Finally, we asked principals an open ended question about their schools' current needs. We asked them to describe the ideal outside resource for violence prevention, that they felt was currently not available.
The most common response, mentioned by a quarter of the 29 respondents who listed examples, was the availability of speakers to address students. Examples given included former convicts (success stories) and police officers.
17 percent mentioned the need for more social workers. Another 17 percent said they would benefit from a resource that would help them find better ways for students to deal with death.
14 percent, or 4 respondents, mentioned that increasing parent involvement with school would be a helpful resource in violence prevention. Another 14 percent listed the need to build the community in general.
Other examples given by at least 2 principals were: More anger management resources (10%), more counselors (10%), help with conflict resolution (10%), more violence prevention in general (7%), more theater productions related to violence (7%), and a resource that would summarize what is available for violence prevention-- one person suggested a World Wide Web site with ideas and resources--(7%).
Overall, it appears that the Education Action Team achieved many of its desired impacts on schools in Ramsey County. While awareness of the team itself is not great among assistant principals, reports of use of the team's services and work with other groups who collaborate with the team reveal that the team is a fairly important resource for schools.
Interview respondents who did know about the team and its resources felt that the team had both encouraged their school to change its violence prevention efforts, and provided resources to do so. All felt the team's activities were important. Note that many of the active Education Team members are violence prevention staff from the school districts in Ramsey County. Often, because of their position, these staff members have the ability to distribute information and materials directly to teachers and others who work with children, by-passing principals and assistant principals. This method of distribution differs from that of the Interfaith Team, which often sends materials out to churches "cold,"without any previous contact and without directing them toward an individual in the church.
The activities documentation (detailed in Appendix A) shows that the team has engaged in activities that involve teachers, administrators, and students; and that the team's efforts have at least resulted in the dissemination of information. At best, schools will use this information in an appropriate, effective fashion to supplement their violence prevention activities.
A few observations on the team's impact, based on the telephone interview with principals, include:
The fact that only a few school principals and assistant principals were aware of the Education Team does not seem to have hurt the team's ability to influence the schools. This results, in part, from the fact that many team members are also school staff, and can bring the teams message and products directly back to the teachers. However, the team's impact might be further increased if people with decision-making roles, such as principals and assistant principals, were aware of the team and saw it as a resource to be called upon for violence prevention needs.
A major impact of the Education Action Team was its role as a facilitator in the collaboration of the four suburban districts as they applied for Community Violence Prevention Council Grants. These grants, in turn, were used for a variety of activities, which seem to have impacted the schools in important ways, as listed in Table 5. This type of "facilitation of resource attainment"is a way that the team can have a far-reaching impact while moving on to additional activities once the resources are attained.
According to the assistant principals and principals interviewed, every school addresses violence prevention in some way. In fact, most schools have multiple programs and policies related to violence issues. Clearly, awareness and action exist related to violence prevention. In fact, the schools might already be "flooded"with material on violence prevention, from many organizations. Therefore, the Education Team might act to improve the quality of the schools' approaches to violence prevention. Any help the team could give to the schools in ensuring that the most effective, efficient approach is taken (rather than a haphazard effort), would probably be particularly important. The team might increase its impact, for example, in the following ways:
by helping schools to identify the mix of programs most likely to be effective for their particular student body;
by encouraging appropriate use of resources; and
by fostering joint efforts to develop new resources among districts, in a cost effective manner, if existing resources do not respond adequately to the districts' needs.
This may require a change in the mindset of some team members, away from emphasizing activities to promote awareness of a violence as a problem, and toward the identification of an effective plan to address an already acknowledged problem. The team may also want to devote some of its efforts to increase knowledge about that problem.[28]
The Education Team should consider the specific needs mentioned by schools in this interview as possible areas on which to focus their product and program development. The needs mentioned that seem particularly feasible for the Education Team to address (some of which have already been addressed in several ways) include:
Speakers for student groups
Helping students deal with death
Encouraging parent involvement in the schools
Anger management resources
Conflict resolution resources
A World Wide Web site with resources and referrals
Summary
The Gun Violence Action Team (GVAT) is currently in a transitional phase, shifting from a legislative focus to a public health approach. This report makes recommendations for evaluating impacts as this new direction takes shape, and it provides some general observations and recommendations for the GVAT.
The GVAT has engaged in at least four separate lobbying efforts related to state legislation. Some of these efforts continue.
The GVAT obtained a large grant from the Joyce Foundation to take a public health approach to reducing gun violence. Through this grant, the team has hosted community forums and made efforts to improve tracking and reporting of gunshot wound data in hospital emergency rooms statewide.
Research staff noted that the team's recent shift from legislative change to a more community-based effort seems appropriate.
The team should continue to follow up the comments and general themes which emerge from community forums. Results from past forums should help to shape the content and format of future forums, and to inform the team's goal-setting efforts.
The GVAT's greatest upcoming challenges are to develop goals and sub-goals that are relevant, purposeful and achievable, and to keep members engaged in the team's work.
We did not conduct a telephone interview to assess the intermediate impacts of the Gun Violence Action Team (GVAT). When we designed the evaluation (and while we collected data), the GVAT was in a transitional phase, where its focus was shifting from legislative to community-based. The team's work with the legislature focused on only a few legislators and lobbyists; and the team agreed that contacting legislators to ask about the GVAT's attempts to change legislation would be futile. The community forums they held would have provided an easy sample to interview, but the forums, while an important part of the GVAT's work, would not have been a good representation of the breadth of work done by the GVAT. Their Joyce Foundation Grant (described in more detail in Appendix A[29]) allowed the GVAT to take a multi-faceted approach to prevent gun violence. Thus, to do justice to the work of the GVAT, a multi-faceted evaluation would be required. Rather than provide a skewed picture of their work, we provide some recommendations for the team to collect evaluative data and use it as they grow.
As noted in Appendix A, the GVAT made at least four separate lobbying efforts to either pass or stop the passage of legislation. The GVAT was not the only organization supporting or opposing a given bill, and the legislators were no doubt approached by lobbyists and constituents from various perspectives related to these bills. The results of this lobbying are fairly inconclusive. The efforts to stop the expansion of concealed weapons rights have been successful so far (the legislation has not passed, although there is really no way to know if this is at all the result of GVAT lobbying). But efforts to pass legislation to lift preemption, giving local governments more power to regulate guns, have not resulted in the desired legislation, nor have efforts to pass legislation to limit the purchase of handguns to one per month.
The GVAT recognizes that lobbying is not the only way to impact legislation or the climate surrounding guns, and has been gradually shifting to a more community-based effort. They recently obtained a large grant from the Joyce Foundation to take a public health approach to reducing gun violence. With this grant, they have hosted forums in several St. Paul communities, in an effort to raise awareness among community members and empower communities. The team also used the grant to improve the tracking and reporting of information about gunshot wounds treated in hospital emergency rooms.
As a part of this evaluation, Wilder Research Center agreed to provide some recommendations to the GVAT about how the team members could evaluate their work as it gains momentum, and then how they could use these evaluation results to improve the work they do. We also provide some general comments, based on the data we collected on the GVAT (from the Member Interview, Activities Documentation, and observation of team meetings).
In a team meeting related to this evaluation, team members agreed that one important, yet often unrecognized, characteristic of the GVAT is that it teaches professionals from a large number of systems and community organizations about gun violence issues and about resources available through fellow members. These individuals then bring this information back to their own systems. We developed a survey to try to measure this impact. This effort was unsuccessful, but could be considered a "pilot" study to inform the development of future, improved evaluation efforts. The process we attempted was the following:
A one-page survey mailed to all GVAT members, asking them to rate how much the GVAT affected their own knowledge about gun violence and how systems deal with the issue, and how much they have passed this type of information on to colleagues not involved in GVAT. The survey also asked how much the GVAT helped members cause the system in which they work or volunteer to change policies related to guns.
A section of the survey that asks members to list the names of individuals or organizations they feel they have impacted through their work with the GVAT.
An more in-depth interview with the individuals listed by members to find out whether their knowledge, attitudes and skills related to gun violence have changed at all as a result of their contact with the GVAT member, and whether they had passed this information on to others or made changes in their own systems based on the information.
More interviews with individuals listed by those interviewed above.
This process was not successful because most GVAT members did not return the survey, and of the few who did return it, only one or two identified other people we could contact to interview.
It is possible that less active GVAT members are not committed enough to the organization to have an interest in completing this type of survey. If so, it seems that the GVAT should first work to bolster the enthusiasm and involvement of its own members, possibly also recruiting new members. This is particularly important if the approach underlying the above evaluation design actually fits the GVAT. If the GVAT could, indeed, have a major impact simply by bringing members from a variety of systems and organizations together and educating them about gun violence, while providing the chance to "network,"then the team should place a high priority on engaging as many members as possible.
If, however, the above theory does not fit as well with the GVAT as active members perceive, then a different evaluation approach is advisable. Aside from impacting its members, the GVAT currently has the following goals and approaches:
Elevate gun violence as a public health and safety issue through its Joyce Foundation grant, through two basic approaches:
Hold Community Forums, empower the community to work together on this issue.
Formalizing statewide data collection of gunshot wound information in emergency rooms.
Continue the existing legislative approach, lobbying for or against bills according to the team's beliefs
Based on these approaches, other possible ideas for evaluation of the GVAT's work include:
Developing a standardized, objective survey instrument to be administered to all participants in Community Forums. The instrument could ask about each forum's impacts on the individual, how the individual plans to use the information obtained in the forum, and what the individual's attitudes are related to guns. These people could then be contacted by telephone several months later to find out if they have followed through on any action as a result of the forum. If this process became a regular part of Community Forums, eventually enough data may be gathered to make some generalizations about the forums' impacts.
Surveying a set of emergency room staff in the early stages of the reforms in recording gunshot wound circumstances. Baseline information could be collected on how the recording system is working and the level of cooperation staff are seeing in their facility. Suggestions could also be taken on how staff think the system could be more effective. The program could be revised based on information from the initial survey, and follow-up surveys could be conducted to assess the change in compliance.
Along with surveys of emergency room staff, an evaluation of the GVAT's work should include an assessment of how state officials and others actually use the improved records of gunshot wounds. The team could do surveys to find out about use of the new information, and the team could provide recommendations on how they believe it should be used.
Based on a review of the GVAT's activities, along with several visits to team meetings, research staff developed the following recommendations for the team to consider:
The shift in focus from legislative change to a more community-based effort seems appropriate. Team members' interest can only persist for a limited amount of time when much of the team's work is in the hands of a lobbyist. By setting concrete, realistic goals where members can see results, the GVAT will engage more members in its work. This will allow the team to increase its impact on members, in the fashion explained above, and simply to complete more projects, which will, in turn, impact other individuals.
From our documentation of activities,[30] it appears that GVAT members have established a good process for reviewing the comments and general themes which participants identified at Community Forums. This type of follow-up increases the potential of these forums to lead to change. Follow-up of issues raised in forums should be used to shape the format and content of future forums. It should also be used by the GVAT to identify priorities in communities, and to select activities and set achievable goals.
Members of the GVAT answered several open-ended questions that asked for suggestions on how the team could be improved. One member mentioned that the GVAT meeting attendance varies a great deal, resulting in a lack of continuity and difficulty completing tasks. This member recommended that the team identify a "steering committee"who would take a more task-oriented approach and meet regularly on its own, while others who were interested in general issues, but were less committed to helping with activities, could meet periodically to network and get updates on the team's efforts. In light of the challenges the GVAT currently seems to face, this idea has some appeal. The team might also consider taking a short survey of members to establish their level of commitment, and to determine what types of improvements would increase their commitment.
Overall, the GVAT seems to be moving in the right direction by adding more community-based activities to its current efforts. The team's greatest challenges will be to identify new goals and sub-goals that are relevant, purposeful and achievable, as current plans are completed; and to keep members engaged in the process. If the team can accomplish the former, the latter will probably also occur.
Summary
Thirty clergy and other religious professionals in Ramsey County answered a telephone interview about the status of violence prevention in the churches and the impacts of the Interfaith Team on their organization.
A small percentage of respondents were aware of their organization's contact with the Interfaith Team. Of those who were aware, all said that contact with the Interfaith Team had led their church to change, or add to, its violence prevention efforts. All felt the team had helped their congregation increase awareness about family violence.
Some respondents who stated no awareness of the Interfaith Team actually recognized some of the team's products. These products were the Interfaith Family Violence Prevention Resource Center and the Covenant to Join the Journey to Help End Family Violence. Most respondents felt the Resource Center was at least "somewhat useful", and half said the Covenant prompted action on the part of their congregation.
Respondents listed 35 outside organizations that had been helpful in their church's violence prevention efforts. Of these, 8 organizations listed were involved at least peripherally with the Interfaith Team's work, and 9 were strongly involved with the team's work through collaborations or sharing of information.
Overall, few of the religious organizations interviewed offer services or have policies related to violence prevention or intervention. Of the services that are offered and policies that exist, most have been implemented in the time since the Interfaith Team's inception.
Although respondents reported relatively low recognition of the Interfaith team, the team is probably still making important contact with churches through its products and its collaboration with other organizations.
The Interfaith Team could increase its impact by involving more churches and more religions as active members of the team, and by focusing more attention on clergy and other church decision-makers.
Most respondents reported a "low" or "moderately low" level of need for violence prevention activities in their congregation. They also tended to think that family violence is "not a significant problem" for members of the congregation. These findings may indicate either that the need for violence prevention is low, or that violence problems remain invisible to clergy and lay leaders. The Interfaith Team should explore this question to determine whether to focus on raising awareness in religious organizations.
The fact that the team has successfully partnered with so many organizations that were listed by respondents as helpful in violence prevention indicates that partnering is a valuable method of increasing impact.
We interviewed 30 clergy and other religious professionals in Ramsey County to assess the status of violence prevention in churches and the impacts of the Interfaith Team on religious organizations in the area. The interview included questions about how congregations currently address family violence, what resources they use to learn about violence prevention, and about how important this issue is to clergy. Respondents also answered questions about specific services or products of the Interfaith Team, and about what resources their congregations need for dealing with family violence.[31]
Who participated in the Interfaith Interview?
Thirty respondents completed the interview. Seventy-three percent of these respondents said they were clergy, while 27 percent played some other role in their congregation, including a youth director, a member of a board of directors, a nun, and several assistants to clergy. Originally, we selected 40 religious organizations from a directory of 561 churches and religious organizations kept by the St. Paul Area Council of Churches. This list was last updated in 1996, and includes all denominations and religions the Council of Churches was able to locate. We used the following process to select our sample:
We took the four most common religions (Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist, and United Methodist) and randomly selected approximately five percent of each group. This led to a sample with 10 Lutherans (of various denominations), 4 Catholics, 3 Baptists, and 3 United Methodists.
Thirty-three other religions were listed in the directory. We randomly selected roughly 10 percent (or 20 churches) of the 221 churches listed under those 33 other religions.
Some churches listed in the directory were not in Ramsey County. When a non-Ramsey County church was selected, we chose another church from the same religion for the interview.
Of the 34 churches that we contacted directly (beyond leaving messages), 88 percent completed the interview, 9 percent refused to complete the interview because they were not interested, and 3 percent refused due to a lack of time.[32]
80 percent of respondents who completed the interview said their church was Protestant. (This included 12 Lutheran churches, 3 United Church of Christ churches, and 6 other religions or denominations.[33]) Ten percent reported that they were from a Catholic congregation; one respondent (3%) was from a Jewish synagogue; one was Eastern Orthodox; and one identified with the Christian and Missionary Alliance.
The 30 respondents were from churches of varying sizes. About one third fell into each of the following groups: 250 or fewer people, 251 to 500 people, and more than 1000 people. No respondents were from congregations with between 501 and 999 people.
What type of contact did these religious organizations have with the Interfaith Action Team? How helpful was this contact?
A number of questions focused on the level of contact the Interfaith Team had with respondents' religious organizations. Not only did we ask directly whether the respondent had heard of the Team, but we also tried to detect whether contact had been made with a church even when the respondent was not aware of it. As we did with the Education Team Interview, we asked about several of the products or services that the Team provided, and we asked open ended questions about organizations that had helped churches with violence prevention activities. These questions sought both to find out what violence prevention-related activity occurred in churches and to find out if this activity benefited at all from the work of the Interfaith Action Team.
How did respondents answer specific questions about the Interfaith Action Team?
We asked respondents if they remembered their organization having any contact with the Interfaith Action Team.[34] Out of 30 respondents, ten percent said their group had been in contact with the team. One person (3%) did not know, and 87 percent said their church or religious group had never had contact with the Interfaith Team. The three respondents who were aware of the Interfaith Team's work with their church were all from congregations of more than 250 people. One reported being from a Catholic congregation, one from United Church of Christ, and one Lutheran.
The three respondents who knew about the team were asked to specify the type of contact they had had with the team. One had heard about some action of the team related to handgun violence, and the other two said a committee member from their organization had attended meetings or events put on by the team.
All three respondents responded affirmatively when they were asked whether contact with the Interfaith Team had led their church to change or add to its violence prevention efforts. The changes they mentioned were: putting information in their newsletter; including the topic in sermons; and designating a lay person to lead an exploration of the issue.
Two of the three respondents who had previous contact with the Interfaith Team said "yes"when asked if the team had provided them with information or resources about violence prevention.
All three respondents said "yes"when asked if the team had helped their congregation increase awareness about family violence.
None of the three respondents who were aware of the Interfaith Team could offer any suggestions when asked what the team could have done differently to be more helpful.
Were respondents aware of any of the services or products offered by the Interfaith Action Team?
When we asked respondents if their congregation had used the Interfaith Family Violence Prevention Resource Center (housed at the St. Paul Area Council of Churches, and maintained by the Interfaith Team), 20 percent, or 6 of the 30 respondents, said they had.[35] Additionally, 7 more people, or 23 percent, were aware that the library exists, but had not used it.
One (17 percent) of the six respondents who had used it said the library was "very useful,"while 4 (67 percent) felt it was "somewhat useful." One person said they felt the library was not at all useful.
We also asked if respondents had seen the Covenant to Join the Journey to Help End Family Violence.[36] Again, 6 respondents, or 20 percent, said they had seen this mailing. Two of these 6 respondents had also used the Resource Library.
Half of the six respondents who had seen the covenant said "yes"when asked if it prompted action on the part of their congregation.
Did respondents mention anything in response to general questions about violence prevention activities that indicates the Interfaith Action Team has helped them?
The interview also included some general questions about outside groups who had helped or collaborated with congregations in their efforts to address family violence. We asked about violence-related events that respondents or other clergy had attended and about groups that had provided resources or caused congregations to change or add to their violence prevention activities. These questions not only provide a sense of what resources exist for churches beyond the Interfaith Team, but they also attempt to detect activities or groups that may be related to the Interfaith Team.
Slightly more than half of the respondents said that either they themselves, or clergy from their congregation, had attended at least one educational event related to family violence.
When asked to specify the event, two thirds of these 18 respondents mentioned a training event related to family violence, but were not able to give the name. Respondents also mentioned twelve specific events. A complete list of these events appears in Appendix A. One person mentioned the "Interfaith Action Team's Religious Responses to Violence,"and two people listed the "St. Paul Area Council of Churches Handguns and Family Violence." The former is clearly related to the Interfaith Team, although it may refer to any of several educational forums the team has put on.[37] The latter example is also related to the Interfaith Team, as it worked with the Clergy Advisory Council of the St. Paul Area Council of Churches on this event.
These 18 respondents were also asked to select from a list of possible types of sponsors of the educational events they had attended. More than half said at least one of their specified events had been sponsored by a community group. Others (about 45 percent) said events were sponsored by their denomination or by the seminary they had attended (28%). About one fifth of the 18 respondents said their own congregation had put on an event, while another fifth said they had attended an event at a seminary (other than the one they had attended). The seven respondents who also chose "some other group"listed several organizations as sponsors, including the county; an insurance company; a coalition of victim advocates; a health care organization; another church; and Congregations Concerned for Children (a group the Interfaith Team collaborates with).
Respondents answered open ended questions about which outside groups had caused them to change or add to their violence prevention efforts, which groups had provided resources, and which groups had increased awareness in their congregations. Table 7 shows how the examples people gave may be related to the Interfaith team.
About one fourth (or 7 respondents) agreed that some outside group had caused them to change or add to their violence prevention efforts. Each of these respondents specified a different group.[38] Groups listed included Congregations Concerned for Children (a close ally the Interfaith Team), Anoka County, the Hmong Violence Prevention Initiative, and Family Services.
When the seven respondents who said their congregation had changed or added to violence prevention efforts were asked to specify what had changed, most (86%) said they had used the information in sermons and to address issues in the church. Other examples of changes included adding a support group to the church and establishing a relationship with a counseling service.[39]
About half of all respondents agreed that an outside group had helped their church by providing information or resources related to violence prevention.
Eleven of the 14 respondents listed examples of groups that had provided resources. Some of these examples were: Baptist for Life Group; Christian Ministry Resources; Northwest Youth and Family Services, Aid Association for Lutherans; and Casa de Esperanza.[40]
Twenty percent of respondents said an outside group had helped increase awareness about family violence in their congregations. Groups listed as increasing awareness were Greater Minnesota Center of Evangelicals, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, the Coalition for Battered Women, Parent's Anonymous, a women's shelter, the Children's Defense Fund, Family Violence Network, and Congregations Concerned for Children.
Many of the organizations listed above as having helped congregations with violence prevention may be related in some way to the Interfaith Action Team. Often, the team collaborated with other groups, or distributed materials designed by other groups at their forums. Additionally, other groups sometimes distributed the Interfaith Team's materials. The list of organizations mentioned by respondents was reviewed by a representative of the Interfaith Team who is also the staff liaison for the St. Paul Area Council of Churches and Congregations Concerned for Children. This review revealed a number of organizations who had worked in some way with the Interfaith Team. The following table details the organizations listed by respondents which may have been related to the Interfaith Team.
Table 12. Table 7: Groups or Events Which Have Helped Churches With Violence Prevention*
| Open Ended Responses listed by Interfaith Interviewees (clergy and lay leaders): Groups or events that helped with violence prevention efforts. | Groups That Were Involved With the Interaction Team's Work, but Only Peripherally | Groups That Were Strongly Involved With the Interfaith Team's Work |
|---|---|---|
| Training about families and violence | X- The Interfaith Team has held several such training sessions | |
| Children's Defense Fund | X- Congregations Concerned for Children (a group that works jointly with the Interfaith Team) promotes the CDF's Children's Sabbath, which focused on violence several years ago. | |
| St. Paul Area Council of Churches: Handguns and Family Violence Service | X- The Council's Clergy Advisory Council is working on this, and has met with the Interfaith Team, exchanging information. | |
| Commission on Women through the Archdiocese | X- People on the Archdiocese's Commission on Women attend Interfaith Team meetings and promote their activities, and the Interfaith Team promotes the Commission's activities. | |
| Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women | X- The Interfaith Team and Congregations Concerned for Children have used their materials at workshops and on resource tables. | |
| Interfaith Action Team- Religious Response to Violence | X- The Interfaith Team and Congregations Concerned for Children co-sponsored this workshop on 10/7/97. | |
| Dakota Alliance for Prevention | X- The Interfaith Team has provided this group with materials for a packet the group sent out to congregations in Dakota County. | |
| Congregations Concerned for Children | X- This is the group that works closely with the Interfaith Team on some projects. They are also sponsored by the St. Paul Area Council of Churches. | |
| St. Paul Area Council of Churches | X- The sponsor, or anchor organization, of the Interfaith Action Team. | |
| Community Groups (General) | X- The Interfaith Team is a community group, and works with other community groups to help promote workshops, brochures, etc. | |
| Archdiocese | X- As mentioned above, people on the Archdiocese's Commission on Women attend Interfaith Team meetings and help promote activities. | |
| St. Paul Intervention Project | X- People from this group have attended Interfaith Team meetings. The team has passed out some of the St. Paul Intervention Project's materials at events. | |
| Northwest Youth and Family Services | X- The Interfaith Team has passed out some of their materials at resource fairs. | |
| Casa De Esperanza- House of Hope | X- The Interfaith Team passed out some of their materials at a workshop. | |
| Annual Conference of United Methodist Churches | X- A former leader of the Interfaith Team held a workshop on family violence at this conference one year. | |
| Women's Shelter | X- The Interfaith Team has passed out materials at workshops and has referred congregations to shelters for speakers on domestic violence. | |
| Family Violence Network | X- The Interfaith Team has passed out their materials at events. |
* Level of Involvement rated by Interfaith Team Member/representative of St. Paul Area Council of Churches.
What is the current status of violence prevention activities in religious organizations in Ramsey County?
The interview included questions about several possible violence prevention activities that may be occurring in churches, in an attempt to understand the needs of these organizations and also to find out if the Interfaith Team's activities are addressing the needs of the community.
About one fourth of the respondents said their church provides training for staff members on family violence issues.
About a third reported that they hold adult education forums or classes that focus on family violence. Forty-three percent said they hold youth education seminars or classes on family violence issues.
One third also said their church has formal policies on dealing with family violence.
Slightly less than one fourth of respondents said their church offers volunteer opportunities for members to help with family violence prevention activities.
Ten percent of respondents said their church offers support groups for children or adults who are affected by violence.
Slightly less than half of the respondents said they do sermons or lead group discussions focusing on family violence. Of those, almost three fourths said they do so yearly, while one respondent does so monthly, and three do so less often than yearly.
Is there any indication that the current activities related to violence prevention were implemented since the Interfaith Team began?
We asked respondents who said their church provided a violence prevention activity to indicate approximately when they initiated that activity. The intent was to find out whether and how the status of violence prevention in the churches had changed during the life span of the Interfaith Action Team. While we will not be able to directly attribute any changes in violence prevention activities to the team, this section at least assesses how things may have changed during the team's existence.
Of the 8 respondents whose churches provide training on family violence issues, three (or 37 percent) had implemented the activity since 1993, the year the Interfaith Team was instituted.
Of the 11 respondents whose churches hold adult education events related to family violence, almost three quarters (8 churches) had implemented the education since 1993. 43 percent, or 13 of the 17 churches who hold youth education events related to family violence, had implemented the activity since 1993.
About one third (3 churches) of the 10 churches who have formal policies on dealing with victims of family violence had implemented these policies since 1993.
Four of the 7 churches who offer volunteer opportunities in family violence prevention said they had implemented these activities since 1993.
Two of the 3 churches who offer support groups for those affected by violence started their programs after 1993.
Do churches and other groups like the Interfaith Team collaborate in efforts to address family violence?
Five respondents (17 percent of the sample) said they have collaborated at least some with other organizations about family violence. These five respondents selected at least one choice from a list when asked which groups their congregation collaborated with in efforts to address family violence. All five said they had collaborated with other congregations of the same faith, and all five also reported having done work with the St. Paul Area Council of Churches. Although this is a small percentage of the total sample, the fact that all who had collaborated had worked with the anchor organization of the Interfaith Team (the St. Paul Area Council of Churches) indicates that the team's potential to influence religious organizations is augmented by its association with the Council.
Four of the five respondents who had collaborated said they had also collaborated with other churches of a faith different from their own. Four also selected community groups as one of the types of groups they had collaborated with. Three respondents said they had worked with individuals from outside their congregation on family violence efforts, and two said they had worked with law enforcement officials. It appears that although a small percentage of churches are collaborating with others in family violence prevention, those who do work with others do so with many groups.
What are the attitudes of clergy and other respondents regarding the importance of addressing violence issues in the church, and how well their groups are addressing those issues?
We asked respondents to rate their level of agreement with four statements related to family violence and how it is addressed in their church. [41]
The first attitude item asked respondents to rate their level of agreement with the statement "My congregation helps families experiencing violence in their homes." Only four respondents (about 13 percent) agreed more strongly than "moderately"with this statement, indicating that respondents generally did not feel very strongly that their congregations were actively addressing family violence. Forty percent agreed "moderately,"and 33 percent agreed "a little." Only one respondent agreed "very little or not at all"with the statement, while three others either refused or did not know their answer. Note that a total of 73 percent of respondents felt that their congregation addressed the issue at least a small amount.
Another item asked respondents how much they agreed with the statement, "I would like to see family violence addressed more than it has been within my congregation." Twenty-three percent of respondents agreed "a lot"or "completely or almost completely." Forty-three percent agreed "moderately"with this statement, while 17 percent agreed "a little." Thirteen percent said they agreed "very little or not at all." One person refused to answer this question.
Respondents rated their level of agreement with the statement, "Family violence is not a significant problem for members of our congregation." Twenty-six percent agreed more strongly than moderately, indicating that they did not see family violence as a significant problem in their church. Forty-three percent agreed "moderately"with this statement. Another 10 percent agreed "a little"with the statement. About 13 percent said they agreed "very little or not at all"with this statement, indicating that they may see family violence as a significant problem with their congregation.
Finally, the statement, "My denomination or religious community has provided information and leadership to help our congregation address family violence." No respondents agreed completely with this statement, while 23 percent agreed "a lot." Slightly more than one third said they agreed "moderately,"and 17 percent agreed only "a little." Another 17 percent agreed "very little or not at all,"indicating that they probably don't receive leadership at the denominational level regarding family violence.
What needs exist in the religious community for responding to family violence? Is the Interfaith Action Team attempting to fill these needs?
We provided a short description of the activities of the Interfaith Action Team and then asked respondents to rate the level of need for help with these types of violence prevention activities in their congregation.
Most respondents (nearly 70 percent) rated their level of need as "low"or "moderately low." 17 percent rated their level of need as "average," and 13 percent rated it "moderately high." No respondent rated their congregation's need for help with violence prevention activities in religious organizations as high. The fact that most respondents don't see a need for the types of services provided by the Interfaith Team could be interpreted as a lack of awareness of the importance of family violence issues, or it could be seen as an actual lack of need for the Team's services. Further exploration of this issue could be an important task for the Interfaith Team, as it may lead them to alter the type of activities they conduct or shift their focus.[42]
The Interfaith Action Team faces a particularly challenging task, as it attempts to address family violence through faith communities, where this issue has historically been seen as a personal one, and as a problem that is not prevalent in religious communities. Amy Okaya noted a "lukewarm interest in addressing family violence"[43] in her research in 1994. It appears that the climate surrounding family violence in religious organizations has not changed a great deal since that time. The low level of participation in this interview (we selected 80 groups, and with repeated efforts obtained the cooperation of 30) indicates that interest among the churches we contacted was not great.
As noted earlier, the Interfaith Team has traditionally distributed information to churches "cold,"without making an initial contact or identifying a specific individual to target within the organization. This approach differs from that of the Education Team, which consists largely of school staff members, and distributes materials through the violence prevention coordinator/team member in each district directly to teachers. The Interfaith Team has recently started personally contacting churches before distributing materials, in order to increase the chances that these materials will end up in the hands of someone who will put them to use.
A few observations and recommendations, based on the findings from the interviews and other evaluation activities, include:
When they rated their agreement with several statements related to violence prevention, most respondents indicated a desire to have their church address family violence more than it had previously. However, when they were asked to rate their church's level of need for the services provided by the Interfaith Team, most respondents rated their need as moderately low or low. Additionally, respondents generally felt that family violence was not a significant problem in their own congregation. It appears that while interest exists in the issue, there is either some question as to how proactive respondents are willing to be, or as to how much of a need exists for the services provided by the Interfaith Team. The Interfaith Team might want to explore this apparent paradox.
The Activities Documentation (detailed in Appendix A) shows a sustained effort on the part of the Interfaith Team to generate awareness and educate the religious community in family violence prevention strategies. Most activities listed in Appendix A have the goal of either "consciousness raising"or "institutional change." These goals seem appropriate, in light of the lack of interest and the low level of existing services in the religious community to address this issue. Once they establish awareness, there will probably be more acknowledgement of a need for the team's services. Until then, the team should look closely at its efforts to raise consciousness, and create a comprehensive plan first to raise awareness, and establish themselves with religious organizations, and then to introduce non-threatening, useful options to address the issue, based on needs identified by the community.
Although interviewees reported relatively low recognition of the Interfaith Team, the team is probably still making important contact with churches. Information from the respondents shows that some churches do work with groups that collaborate with the Interfaith Team. This demonstrates that the team has made important contacts in the community, and has succeeded at disseminating information. Nonetheless, the team needs to focus even more attention on clergy and other church decision-makers. These individuals have yet to realize the dimensions of need for violence prevention and education, and they remain unaware, for the most part that the Interfaith Action Team can provide resources and other assistance.
The Interfaith Action Team could increase its impact by involving more churches and more religions as active members of the team. The team has tried to encourage participation of all faiths, but it has faced challenges in getting many groups to participate. The team should continue its efforts to include a variety of religions and cultural backgrounds in its membership. One way to get the "buy-in" of clergy and other leaders from a variety of religions and cultures is to involve them in the process, so they can bring what they are learning back to their own religious community.
The fact that the team has successfully partnered with so many organizations that were listed by respondents as helpful in violence prevention indicates that partnering is a valuable method of increasing impact. By getting the interest and support of other organizations that are already used by churches for services, the Interfaith Team saves the time and effort it would have spent addressing churches themselves. However, for optimum impact in raising awareness, partnering should be combined with an effort to engage clergy and leaders from religious organizations, and to encourage them to take some responsibility for addressing family violence.
Summary
The Media Team has successfully encouraged a number of advertisers to discontinue advertisements that convey a violent message. The team also created a "how-to"brochure for individuals who are interested in campaigning to remove violent messages from the media.
The team's efforts to help advertisers find non-violent alternatives to their current advertisements, along with the efforts to empower the public through a "how-to"brochure are appropriate. The team should continue to focus its efforts strategically on the most widespread advertisements directed toward the most vulnerable members of the population.
The team created at least 8 media pieces with an anti-violence message. These efforts provide concrete results, thereby enabling members to move on to a next effort with a sense of achievement and satisfaction.
The team should balance product/brochure development with distribution planning, to achieve the maximum impact of its products.
Two new sub-teams emerged from the Media Team's membership. The Positive Parenting Messages Group focuses on creating and distributing materials related to healthy parenting techniques, and the Men's Messages Group provides resources and support for men who are at risk of behaving violently.
The fact that two groups emerged from the Media Team and started working on additional goals indicates that the Media Team has sustained its members' enthusiasm.
As with the Gun Violence Action Team, we did not conduct a telephone interview to evaluate the intermediate impacts of the Media Team. The Media Team has several focus areas. It focuses on media organizations, on parents (especially through its sub-team, the Positive Parenting Messages sub-team), on men (the Men's Messages sub-team), and on creating media that spread a message of non-violence. The main thrust of the Media Team is to create media. The brochures, buttons, magnets, and other materials they have created continue to be distributed throughout the community, and sometimes nation-wide.
A detailed description of the distribution of these products provides the best account of the Media Team's work thus far. Generally, the products are designed to reach a large number of people to generate public awareness and action related to violence. The number of items distributed is a measurable indicator of the team's accomplishments. The attempt to identify the impacts of these items (for example, by contacting people who received buttons or brochures) would probably provide no useful information. Changes in public awareness, along with action in the community, probably never result directly from something so simple as a brochure. Brochures, posters, buttons, and so on, are designed to work in conjunction with programs and other resources in the community, rather than on their own. Thus, the initial impacts review and the activities documentation[44] provide an appropriate evaluation of the Media Team's work thus far, and the team was not included in the telephone interviews to ascertain intermediate impacts.[45]
Initiative staff asked Wilder Research Center staff to provide some observations and recommendations based on the member interview, the documentation of activities, visits to team meetings, and interviews with team leaders. These observations and recommendations appear in the remainder of this section of the report, by type of activity.
The Media Team has encouraged a number of advertisers to discontinue advertisements that convey a violent message.[46] In most cases, these efforts have resulted in removal of the advertisements. It is difficult, if not impossible, however, to measure the impact the removal of a single advertisement had on the general public. We know that the team played a role in the removal of at least six violent messages from advertising and merchandising. One of these was a nation-wide campaign, while the others were local. Additionally, they created a "how-to"brochure for individuals with an interest in helping with the campaign to remove violent messages from advertisements and the media in general.
These efforts are based on the assumption that violent messages in the media contribute to violence in our society. If this assumption is true, then removing violent messages from the media is an appropriate and potentially important activity.
The idea of empowering the community through a brochure with tips on encouraging media to remove violent messages makes sense. The brochure provides sample letters, which refer the recipient to the Initiative. The brochure encourages readers to respond in a responsible way, and also to think about responding approvingly to positive messages. If others, beyond Media Team Members, can be enlisted to place pressure on media, more advertisements and other violent media will probably disappear. The team's emphasis on how to do this responsibly is appropriate. The team should thoughtfully consider how it distributes this brochure, so it ends up in the hands of individuals who will use it.
The team has also made an effort to help advertisers find non-violent alternatives to their current advertisements. This shows that the team is serious, and it builds rapport with advertisers. This offer should accompany any request for removal of an advertisement, if possible.
The team should continue to be deliberate about selecting advertisers and media officials to contact. Advertisements and other media that reach a large number of people should be a priority. Additionally, the team should consider the type of people a particular piece of media might reach, prioritizing media directed at children, or others who might be vulnerable to the messages conveyed. Finally, the team must exhibit flexibility, avoiding efforts unlikely to succeed, and changing approaches when efforts do not result in success.
The team created at least 8 media pieces with an anti-violence message. Among these are television public service announcements with a nationally known pop band, buttons, brochures, magnets and posters. They are also in the process of completing a guide for reporters and editors to encourage sensitive, appropriate reporting of violence in the news media.
In the Member Interview, Media Team members listed the team's products as their most important accomplishments. This type of activity is a good way to sustain interest among members, because members can see concrete results when it is completed.
However, the Media Team must be careful not to rely too heavily on brochure/product development while ignoring the importance of the distribution plan for products, and efforts to pair products with educational programs or events. The team could increase the likelihood that they address all aspects of development and distribution of their items by developing a protocol or action plan for the process.[47] The team should cover the following in its resource development:
Identifying a topic that is relevant, where a need exists for materials
Researching the topic to be covered in material
Identifying the intended audience for the material, and possibly researching appropriate ways to reach that audience
Identifying organizations to partner with for development, printing and distribution
Creating a distribution plan by identifying ideal recipients and identifying possible ways to combine distribution with discussion or other, more interactive formats (this could increase the impact of written material). Partnering organizations should be involved in distribution plans, as they may have relationships with potential recipients or groups of recipients which would facilitate distribution.
Developing the material with the intended audience and distribution format in mind
Obtaining feedback from potential users on materials early in the process, so materials can be revised before distribution
Two new sub-teams have emerged from the Media Action Team's membership. The first is the Positive Parenting Messages Group, which focuses largely on creating and distributing materials related to healthy parenting techniques, to prevent violence against children. The second is the Men's Messages Group, whose goal is to provide resources for men related to violence, and to provide support for men who are at risk of behaving violently.
The Positive Parenting Group created and distributed magnets and posters with messages encouraging nonviolent parenting. These products are being used by health maintenance organizations as a part of a campaign to reduce family violence among patients. More than 200,000 magnets have gone out to these organizations and other groups, who then distribute them to parents.
The Men's Messages Group developed a telephone line, dedicated to men, through Crisis Connection (an established Minneapolis organization that has counselors available by phone to help clients deal with crises or obtain referrals). Along with this telephone line, the group developed a media campaign to raise awareness both about men's issues and about the line.
Business cards were distributed with the line's phone number, and the group placed advertisements in men's bathrooms.
The fact that two groups have emerged from the Media Team and started working on additional goals indicates the Media Team has sustained its members' enthusiasm.
Judging from the response to both groups' products, the groups are addressing relevant needs in the community. The Positive Parenting group has re-printed their products because of additional requests to the already well-distributed magnets and posters. The Men's Messages phone line has received at least 200 calls since its inception.
The parenting materials are designed to raise awareness through short, catchy messages. If this much demand exists for awareness-raising, the group should consider other methods to further raise awareness, while building in some more advanced educational materials.
It appears that existing parenting materials are being distributed through organizations that provide the appropriate context for this type of information. But the team should consider taking extra steps to ensure that materials are distributed along with at least some discussion or other education about the issues. This would increase the impact of the magnets and posters.
The men's phone line is gathering information on the types of calls received, along with other basic information about the callers, which could be useful for the Men's Messages group as it plans other activities. This information should be reviewed and used both to improve the training for phone counselors, and to identify areas with substantial need, so the Men's Messages group can address these areas through additional activities.
Overall, the Media Action Team seems productive in its efforts to respond to violent messages in the media, to create positive media resources, and to address special areas of concern (parenting and media). The fact that the team continues to evolve and break into sub-groups is evidence that it is responsive to the community's needs, and that its members are appropriately engaged in their work. If the team continues down this path, while maintaining a high standard for the materials it creates, it will certainly sustain momentum. The team should constantly re-evaluate its goals and its impacts, conducting self-evaluation and obtaining outside feedback on a regular basis.
Summary
previously in contact with the Workplace Action Team completed telephone interviews.
Slightly less than half of the respondents remembered that their organization had been in contact with the Workplace Action Team. About a third of this group said the team had caused their organization to change, or add to, its violence policies. All respondents who remembered the team felt the team's contribution to their organization was at least "somewhat important."
About half of the respondents either had attended, or knew a coworker who had attended, a workplace forum on violence, presented by the team. Most of these respondents considered the forums "very helpful"as a resource to their organization. Slightly fewer respondents remembered receiving the team's workbook and video training materials. All who did know about the materials rated them as at least "somewhat helpful."
Respondents listed 23 examples of outside programs that help their organization with violence prevention efforts. Four of the groups listed have been at least peripherally involved in the Workplace Team's efforts, and one was a group that was involved with the team in a substantial way.
Most respondents saw violence as a cost to their organization, and many organizations who completed this interview appeared to be addressing that concern. However, this interview presumably included the most proactive organizations, since they already had contact with the Workplace Team. The Workplace Team should try to engage other, less proactive organizations in violence prevention and education.
Many of the violence prevention activities and policies that currently exist in these organizations were implemented since the inception of the Workplace Team. This indicates that the climate in these businesses has shifted toward acknowledging the importance of violence in the workplace.
To investigate the intermediate impacts of the Workplace Action Team, we used a telephone interview similar to those used with principals for the Education Team and clergy for the Interfaith Team. The interview asked questions about existing violence prevention activities in organizations, and about which outside organizations have helped with violence prevention activities. We also asked specific questions about the amount of contact, if any, that organizations have had with the Workplace Action Team, and about the products and services the team provided. Finally, we included questions about the importance of violence in the workplace: whether violence has apparent costs for the respondent's organization and whether enough concern about the issue currently exists in the organization.
However, the sample for the Workplace Team differs in an important way from those for the Education and Interfaith Teams. With those two teams, we attempted to select a sample from a list of every public school or church identifiable in Ramsey County. This meant that respondents may or may not have had contact with the teams. With the Workplace Team, the sample came from a list of businesses who had requested materials from the team. This method of selecting the sample increased the odds that we would talk to someone who knew something about the Workplace Action Team. Had we sampled 30 to 40 organizations from the entire list of businesses in Ramsey and Hennepin Counties, we would not likely have received any feedback about the activities of the Workplace Team.
It is important to acknowledge the possible shortcomings of selecting a sample based on a list of individuals who already have contacted the Team. Findings will not be generalizable to all workplaces, but will instead provide an assessment of the level of impact the Workplace Team has had on its existing "clients." Organizations which have already been in contact with the Workplace Team may differ in important ways from other organizations.
Who participated in the interview for intermediate impacts of the Workplace Team?
We selected the sample from a variety of lists maintained by Ramsey County staff and the Workplace Action Team. The team has sponsored six forums on violence in the workplace,[48] and has produced a training manual and video on the issue. Attendance rosters were available for five of the six forums, and for the organizations who had ordered the training manual and video. Each list contained between 50 and 110 individuals from organizations. We randomly selected 8 individuals from each of 3 larger forum rosters, 8 individuals from the list of people ordering training materials, and 4 individuals from each of two rosters for the smaller forums, for a total sample of 44. Of these, we were unable to locate phone numbers for 4 people (9%), 4 people refused, 1 was duplicated on the list and was interviewed only once, and for 5 (11%) people we left repeated messages and never made contact. When we obtained 30 complete interviews, we stopped leaving messages for those who had not yet called back.
We first tried to interview the contact person from the list, who had attended a Workplace forum or had called to order the training materials. However, in many cases, this individual was no longer employed in the organization we called. In these situations, we asked to speak with someone who would be able to discuss the organization's policies and programs for dealing with violence prevention. More than half of the interviews (nearly 60 percent of the 30 completed interviews) were completed with the individual who was on our list in the first place, having attended a forum or requested materials.
Because the Workplace Action Team is a joint effort between the Ramsey County Initiative and a similar initiative in Hennepin County, we did not limit our sample to businesses in Ramsey County. Instead, we included any individual from the identified rosters. One respondent was from Appleton, Wisconsin, while the rest were from Minneapolis, St. Paul, or surrounding suburbs.
We attempted to identify each respondent's job title or position, but for 10 respondents this information was either not available or not recorded. Of the 20 for whom we did identify a position, 10 percent were a president or vice president, 15 percent held violence prevention or security positions, 35 percent were human resources staff, and 40 percent held other, miscellaneous positions within their organization.
What type of contact have businesses had with the Workplace Action Team? How helpful was this contact?
We asked if the respondent's organization had been in contact with the Workplace Action Team, and what type of contact this had been. Because the sample was generated from lists of participants in team activities, we knew that all organizations in the sample did have contact with the team.[49] This question was designed to assess the level of awareness of the team among respondents. We also asked those who were aware of contact with the team some questions about the impact this contact had. Finally, we asked for suggestions on how the Workplace Team could be more helpful to the respondent's organization.
43 percent of the 30 respondents (13 individuals) said their organization had been in contact with the Workplace Action Team at some point. The 13 respondents who knew about the team were asked to list examples of how their organization had been in contact with the team. Of these, 8 people (61 percent) mentioned their organization had done training or development with the Workplace Team. Five respondents, or 39 percent, said they or their organization had been involved in the Workplace Action Team as a member. Three people, or about 23 percent, remembered having received the team's newsletter. Two people (15%) said they had received phone calls from the team. One respondent had been asked to be part of the Workplace Team's programs.
How did respondents answer specific questions about the Workplace Action Team?
30 percent of the 13 respondents who knew about the Workplace Team said that the team had caused their organization to formally change or add to their violence policies. When asked to specify, examples listed were: creating a formal policy (listed by 78 percent of the 9 respondents); establishing a "zero tolerance"policy; trying to address domestic abuse; and becoming a consultant on these issues (each mentioned by one respondent).
20 percent of these 13 respondents said the Workplace Team had caused their organization to make informal changes to the way they respond to violence. Examples of informal changes included: greater awareness (listed by 3 of the 6 respondents who had seen informal changes); more sensitivity to domestic violence issues; opening a dialogue on violence; and creating policy (each listed by 1 respondent).
All 13 respondents who were aware of the Workplace Team said the team provided information and resources to use in violence prevention efforts. Resources listed were: referrals or networking; the training video; and the workbook or training manual.
We asked the 13 respondents who knew about the Workplace Team's contact with their organization how important the team's contribution had been to the way the organization faces violence. Of the 12 who responded, all felt the Workplace Team's contribution to their organization was at least "somewhat important." Specifically, 75 percent thought the Workplace Team's contribution to their organization was "somewhat important,"while 25 percent felt the contribution was "very important."
When the 13 individuals who knew about the Workplace Team's contact with their organization answered a question asking what the team could have done to be more helpful, most (69%) said "nothing." Two people, or about 15 percent, said the team could have kept them more informed or updated on activities. Another two people made a suggestion related to changing the program so it fits better into the "corporate structure." The exact meaning of these comments was unclear.
What did respondents think about the services and products of the Workplace Action Team?
We asked about several of the specific products or activities of the Workplace Team. Respondents answered questions about whether they had attended a forum or used the training materials and about how helpful these activities were for their organization.
About half (47%) of the 30 respondents said they or someone from their organization had attended a Workplace Forum on violence. It is important to remember that more than half of the original sample was derived from rosters of participants in these forums, so we would expect many people to remember having participated.
Of the 14 people who said either they or someone else from their organization had attended a Workplace Violence Forum, 12 knew enough about the activity to rate its value. Two thirds of these respondents felt the experience was "extremely helpful"to their organization, while a third said the experience was "somewhat helpful." No respondents gave the forums an unfavorable rating.
37 percent of the 30 respondents said their organization had purchased the workbook and/or video training materials (Workplace Violence: The Costs and Challenges[50]). Of these 11 respondents, most (7) remembered having purchased both the workbook and the video, while two people said they just received the workbook and one had received the video. One person was not certain which materials they had ordered or received.
All 7 of the people who knew enough about the workbook to rate its value felt the information in the workbook was at least "somewhat helpful." Slightly less than two thirds found it "extremely helpful" while slightly more than a third found it "somewhat helpful."
Of the 7 respondents who were knowledgeable enough of the video to rate it, all but one found it at least "somewhat helpful." One person, or 14 percent of the 7, found it "not at all helpful," while three (43%) saw the video as "somewhat helpful," and three found it "extremely helpful."
Nine people were able to give examples of how they had used the training materials (respondents could list more than one example). One third said they used it in group discussions, and two thirds use it in training. One respondent said the materials were used to assess needs and one used them for human resources staff.
Did respondents mention the Workplace Action Team in responding to general questions about violence prevention activities?
We asked respondents a few questions about what kind of outside help they received for violence prevention activities.
Half of the respondents said they do get help from groups outside their organization to address violence and its impact on the workplace. Types of help included consulting (listed by 6 people, or 40 percent of the 15 respondents); training (listed by a third of the 15 respondents); support; and ideas (each listed by 20 percent).[51]
We also asked respondents to specify the outside organizations that have provided their organization with help in violence prevention. As with the Education and Interfaith interviews, this was designed not only to understand what resources exist and are used, but to find out if respondents mentioned any organizations related in some way to the Workplace Action Team, or mentioned the team itself. These questions were early in the interview, before we asked about specifics of the Workplace Team or its activities.
13 respondents provided 23 examples of outside programs that help their organization with violence prevention. The Workplace Action Team was mentioned directly three times. It was referred to as the Workplace Action Team and simply as the Ramsey County Initiative.
Table 8 lists the organizations that respondents mentioned as having helped with violence prevention and that may be related to the Workplace Action Team. The table also details the relationship that these organizations have with the Workplace Team and the Initiative.[52]
Other groups listed as helpful, but which were probably not related to the Workplace Action Team, were a security consulting firm, a domestic abuse program, an independent consultant, the International Critical Incident Organization, the local police department, the Minneapolis Workplace Violence Team, and the Crisis Prevention Institute.[53]
Table 13. Table 8: Groups That Have Helped With Violence Prevnetion, and May be Related to Wokplace Action Team.*
| Open Ended Responses listed by Workplace: Groups that helped with violence prevention efforts. | Groups That Were Involved With the Interaction Team's Work, but Only Peripherally | Groups That Were Strongly Involved With the Workplace Team's Work |
|---|---|---|
| Ramsey Action Programs | X- This group has been very active on the Workplace Action Team, and has used the team's materials, along with materials from other action teams. | |
| Governor's Commission | X- According to Ramsey County staff, the Workplace Team plays a large part in this group's workplace violence prevention efforts. This includes theatre productions, presenters, and materials from the Workplace Team. | |
| Dakota County Public Health | X- This group sponsored 2 Workplace Action Team forums (see Appendix A for details), and regularly distributes the team's materials and refers people to the team. | |
| State of Minnesota | X- The state has used Workplace Action Team materials, and featured the one of their theatre pieces in a statewide teleconference. | |
| 3M | This organization hosted one Workplace Violence Forum (see Appendix A for details), but also does its own work in this area. |
*Ramsey County staff rated each group's level of involvement with the team.
What is the current status of violence prevention activities in workplaces in the region?
We asked respondents whether their organization offers certain violence prevention activities or services. These questions help us understand what violence-related activity currently occurs in these businesses. They were intended both to identify the status of violence prevention activities in the workplace, and to identify possible needed improvements or additional services.
After each item asking about violence prevention services and activities, we asked whether the specified service or activity had been implemented since 1993. The intent was to find out how the status of violence prevention in the workplace had changed during the life span of the Workplace Action Team. While we will not be able to directly attribute any changes in violence prevention activities to the team, this section at least assesses how the level of service and attention to the issue may have changed during the team's existence.
What services or activities do organizations offer related to violence prevention? Is there any indication that the current activities were implemented since the Workplace Action Team began?
Two thirds of the 30 respondents said they address violence through training for human resource staff. Of the 20 who offered training for human resource staff, about 80 percent had implemented the training since 1993.
Almost all respondents' (90%) organizations address violence through Employee Assistance Programs. Slightly less than a third of these 27 organizations who offer Employee Assistance implemented the program since 1993.
About three fourths of the organizations surveyed have formal policies on dealing with violence in the workplace. Nearly 90 percent of those 22 organizations have implemented policies on violence since 1993. However, only one-fifth of the respondents said they were aware of any formal policy in their organization for dealing with staff who are victims of violence (at home or in the workplace). Half of these six organizations had implemented the policies since 1993.
Slightly more than half of the respondents said their organization addresses violence through staff involvement in violence prevention activities. Most of these programs (81 percent) were implemented since 1993. Sixty percent of the organizations surveyed offer special programs and activities related to violence prevention. Again, nearly all (88%) had implemented the programs since 1993.
Half of the 30 respondents said their organization has security personnel in or around the office as a means of addressing violence. Only 2 (14%) of these 15 organizations had started having security personnel after 1993. Slightly more than one-third said they have a staff member who works at least part time coordinating violence prevention, education and intervention efforts for the organization. Most (73%) of these organizations said they had implemented the staff position since 1993.
What were respondents' attitudes related to the need for help with violence prevention, and the relevance of this issue in the workplace?
We asked respondents to rate the extent to which violence is a cost to their organization. We also asked them whether they felt enough attention was paid to this issue in their organization. These questions were designed to determine the relative importance of the issue to organizations. As with the other teams, when questions like this reveal a lack of interest in an issue, this could mean there is a need for more awareness, or it could mean there is actually not much of a problem.
Slightly less than two thirds of the respondents felt that violence costs their business either "some"or "a lot"in terms of loss of productivity or financial costs. Two people, or about 7 percent, felt violence costs their organization "a lot,"while about half thought it costs their organization "some." More than a third said violence costs their organization "not much."
When we asked respondents whether enough concern and acknowledgement of the importance of violence issues exists in their organization, 63 percent said "yes,"that their organization pays enough attention to these issues. Thirty-seven percent, or 11 people, said "no,"that they did not feel their organization shows enough concern or acknowledgement of the importance of violence issues. Respondents who said they did not feel their organization affords enough attention to violence issues tended, more than other respondents, to feel that violence was at least "some"of a cost to their business.
The Workplace Action Team faces challenges in some ways similar to those of the Interfaith Team. While businesses today do not deny that the importance of the issue of violence, they often do not consider it integral to the running of the business. Unless violent incidents actually occur in the workplace, decision-makers in businesses often do not see how violence might affect their profits. However, the Workplace Action Team maintains that almost every workplace incurs direct costs and indirect productivity losses as a result of violence- as employees leave work and often return home each evening to violent family situations, or to violence in their own communities. This evaluation indicates that the Workplace Action Team has had at least some impact on the organizations it has contacted, in terms of educating them about the scope of the problem and about responses to it.
Observations and recommendations based on some of these findings include:
Concern does exist regarding how violence affects the workplace; and some organizations have proceeded to address that concern. Most interviewees did think violence is a cost to their organization. Also, most people felt that their organization pays enough attention to these issues. However, individuals who felt their organization was not attending enough to the violence issue for the most part did see it as a cost to their organization. This reveals an important area of focus for the Workplace Action Team. These interviews were conducted with people whose organizations had already been in contact with the Workplace Team at least once- presumably the more proactive organizations in the area. If key people in these organizations still see a need for more effort, as it appears that they do, the Workplace Team should try to identify this need and address it.
As mentioned above, the interview was with people from organizations who had already contacted the Workplace Team. Efforts should also be made to engage other, less proactive organizations in violence prevention and education, and convince them to take proactive steps. It is likely that the organizations who have not yet sought out the help of the Workplace Team would benefit from some basic education and awareness raising, to highlight the importance of this issue in the workplace. This resembles the efforts put forth by the Interfaith Team to increase awareness and understanding of family violence as it relates to religious organizations. Both teams must meet their target organizations at an appropriate level, first establishing the importance of the issue, then engaging the groups in efforts to make changes.
As with the Education Team and the Interfaith Team, the Workplace Team has collaborated with a number of other organizations, who also have influenced organizations. By partnering with groups (or disseminating information through groups) who already have a relationship with a business or other workplace, the team saves time. In many cases, the team can affect a set of organizations by partnering with a professional association or other "umbrella" organization.
While most workplaces interviewed have formal policies on dealing with violence occurring in the workplace, hardly any have similar policies on handling situations where staff become victims of violence at home. The Workplace Team might investigate this area as a focus for their efforts in the more proactive organizations, where basic awareness of the issue is already evident. It seems that staff victimization off of the work site may cause a larger cost to most workplaces than does on-the-job violence. However, unless an organization is already aware of the issue, it is unlikely to buy into an effort to create a policy about it.
Many of the violence prevention activities and policies that currently exist in the organizations contacted were implemented in the last 4 years. This indicates that the climate in these businesses has shifted toward acknowledging the importance of violence in the workplace. While this may or may not be due to the Workplace Action Team, it provides evidence that the Workplace Action Team is a relevant group, conducting potentially important work.
The evaluation results demonstrate that The Initiative for Violence Free Families and Communities in Ramsey County- grass roots in nature, supported by a government organization, and assisted by a few dedicated staff- can sustain activity over a period of years, can accomplish important goals, and can satisfy the interests of community participants.
The concluding sections of this report contain observations by the research staff, based on the study data, intended to help those committed to the Initiative to answer the questions, "What have we learned?" "How should we move ahead?" "What are the implications of this project for future work on violence, or for work on other community issues?" and similar questions.
This evaluation report can help to inform the ongoing process of program planning, monitoring, and improvement for the Initiative. The report does not constitute an "end product." Rather, it provides information, feedback, and suggestions for improvement based on the teams' activities and impacts so far. Teams should constantly re-evaluate their work, identifying successful activities to use as models for future work, and discontinuing activities of low effectiveness.
The concluding sections are:
The "Community Building" Characteristics of the Initiative
What Are the Implications for Replication?
Other Observations and Suggestions for the Future
In reviewing the evaluation information, the research staff noted that many positive characteristics of the Initiative closely parallel the "ingredients necessary for successful community building" identified by Barb Monsey and Paul Mattessich of Wilder Research Center in the book, Community Building: What Makes it Work[54]. A discussion of those characteristics can inform decisions regarding the best ways to continue and/or to replicate the work of the Initiative.
The characteristics of successful community building efforts that this book identifies, and that the Initiative contains, include:
Community awareness of an issue. For community building efforts to succeed, members of a community must perceive a need to act. If an issue touches the lives of a large number of community members, they develop motivation to participate. In the case of the Initiative, violence has concerned many people in Ramsey County, as well as across the nation. Violence or the threat of violence can affect everyone in a community, so the Initiative immediately contained an important ingredient for success.
Motivation from within the community. For community building efforts to succeed, members of a community must generate the work themselves, rather than relying solely on encouragement or pressure from another group. Ramsey County government developed the idea for this Initiative. The process then included recruitment of community members through a large initial forum. Leadership responsibilities soon passed from the County to participating community members in a fairly empowering fashion.[55] This effort generated motivation from within the community to further develop the Action Teams. A recent five year celebration forum held by the Initiative challenged members to renew their motivation, and keep up their efforts with the Initiative.
Flexibility and adaptability. For success, community building efforts must not develop rigid procedures or have inflexible expectations. They must adapt to new circumstances and admit new ideas from new participants. The Ramsey County Initiative has displayed flexibility, for example, with respect to starting new teams when new needs arise, developing sub-groups to address an important need (as with the Media Team), and shifting the goals or priorities of a team to do what is most effective.
Ability to discuss, reach consensus, and cooperate. These characteristics have enabled the Action Teams to complete tasks and move on to new tasks.
Existing, identifiable leadership. Initiative members expressed, for the most part, satisfaction with the leadership of their teams. Each team has a community member who leads it. Through meeting observations and the Member Interview, research staff saw a set of motivated, enthusiastic leaders who seem to encourage members to take action.[56]
Widespread participation. The Initiative fostered widespread participation for all Action Teams. All the teams could benefit from greater participation; but widespread participation was valued, sought after, and at least partly achieved.
Good system of communication. Formal methods of communication, including newsletters, mailings, distribution of materials by Ramsey County staff, and so on, facilitated the sharing of information and helped to sustain motivation.
Minimal competition in pursuit of goals. The Initiative acts as a facilitator, often networking individuals and groups together. Any potential "competitors"quickly become potential partners. The fact that the Initiative operates largely on in-kind donations, rather than grants, reduces the perception of competition with other local groups.
Develop self-understanding. The Initiative attends to self-understanding and identity development in several ways. The group recently met in a "celebration"of five years of existence, and spent time reviewing the work of Action Teams and setting new goals. This forum educated team members on the work of other teams and renewed group cohesion and identity. The Leadership Team of the Initiative also regularly discusses how the teams' approaches relate to the "root causes of violence." The Leadership Team periodically reviews and revises its definition of the "root causes of violence,"and brings this discussion back to Action Teams to foster a unified identity within the Initiative.
Benefits to many residents. Successful community building efforts generally have goals which will benefit many residents, not just a few. Violence reduction has clear, tangible benefits for county residents.
Focus on product and process concurrently. The Initiative took steps both to achieve specific results as well as to get people involved. This typically produces greater success for a community building effort.
Linkage to organizations outside the community. As necessary, members of Action Teams can tap into outside organizations for ideas, information, resources, collaboration, or other forms of support.
Systematic gathering of information and analysis of community issues. The Initiative has taken a variety of steps during its first six years to obtain and analyze information on violence.
Training to gain community building skills. Ramsey county has informed Initiative members and leaders about a variety of opportunities to build these types of skills. At least five representatives of the Leadership Team (the group of Action Team leaders who meet monthly to exchange information about the teams and develop strategies) attended a conference on leadership training in violence prevention put on by the Harvard School of Public Health. Team Leaders have reviewed information from this conference, and revisited issues raised at the conference several times in Leadership Team meetings. Each leader who attended the conference planned to do three training sessions related to the conference.
Continual emergence of leaders, as needed. Most Action Teams have gone through several cycles of team leaders. Leaders emerge from existing team members, and, for the most part, seem readily available. Some past leaders have left their leadership role but remained as team members, while others have left their team and joined another, or remained active in the Leadership Team, helping existing leaders. Generally, leaders have moved on to new roles when their lives have become too busy to make the needed commitment to team leadership.
Community control over decision making. Most participants feel they have at least some influence on their team's decisions. Most also feel that their fellow team members are willing to consider new suggestions, and most report at least some satisfaction with their team's decision making process.
The right mix of resources. While the Initiative could always use more money, more volunteers, more staff time, and other resources, it has benefited to date from the input of resources from Ramsey County and private organizations. As well, of course, it benefits greatly from the donation of time and talents from committed volunteers.
The Ramsey County staff who facilitate the Initiative seem to have played a large role in its success, as do the community member-leaders of each team. Characteristics of community building organizers that encourage a successful initiative include:[57].
Understanding the community. Ramsey County staff working on the Initiative understand County operations, have knowledge about other systems in the County, and see the perspectives of community members. Additionally, research staff noted that these individuals remain as aware as they can regarding needs in the community as well as fluctuations in public perceptions of violence. They have a vision of how the Initiative can meet these needs, and they have shown a great deal of responsiveness to the community in shaping this vision.
Sincerity of commitment. Ramsey County staff and team leaders have displayed passion in their work with the Initiative. Research staff saw that, in team meetings and other evaluation activities, Ramsey County staff and leaders exhibit excitement about the prospect of preventing violence, and they show commitment to their community.
A relationship of trust. Members' perceptions of team leaders and of Ramsey County staff show their satisfaction with these individuals' work. Trust between leaders, Ramsey County staff, and members has grown over the years, as leaders and staff have followed through on their commitments and sustained their enthusiasm.
Ability to be flexible and adaptable. Ramsey County staff show adaptability as they take on varying roles with different Action Teams, depending on the teams' needs. The Initiative's record of successfully partnering with a wide variety of organizations is evidence of its leaders' flexibility, and of their willingness to adapt to different systems' expectations, playing the role that works best in the situation.
Participants in the Initiative have questioned whether it can serve as a model for other initiatives, that is, whether it can be replicated. To explore this question, it is useful to think about three different forms of replication:
Continuation/extension of the Violence Initiative in Ramsey County.
Establishment of a new initiative on violence, in another geographic area.
Establishment of a new initiative on a new issue, in Ramsey County or elsewhere.
(1)Continuation/extension of the Violence Initiative in Ramsey County
This is the easiest form of replication for a successful project. In a sense, it has occurred through each of the six years of the Initiative because the initially developed model has been applied annually to new violence issues. New teams have developed. The process has evolved. It has "replicated itself." The original goal was to create a strong foundation so that this process could sustain itself into the future.
In the opinion of research staff, the project can successfully sustain itself, as long as it maintains the characteristics of success identified earlier, and as long as it pays attention to some issues listed in the section, "Suggestions for the Future."
(2)Establishment of a new initiative on violence, in another geographic area. [58]
Evidence on the Ramsey County Initiative suggests that a violence prevention initiative of this type could work in other locales- provided that any new initiative maintains the major characteristics leading to success.
A new initiative would have to occur in an area where citizens have at least a minimal level of concern about violence. In all likelihood, success would require such things as widespread participation, flexibility, motivation from within the community, and the other characteristics listed earlier for the Ramsey County Initiative.
The Ramsey County model depended upon stable resources and staffing. These would probably be essential for a new initiative to succeed.
(3)Establishment of a new initiative on a new issue, in Ramsey County or elsewhere.
Can the model work successfully for an issue other than violence? The most general answer is "probably yes." However, this does not imply that the model can work on any issue in all communities.
Successful application of the model developed by the Initiative to a new issue would most likely work, in the opinion of the research staff, only when the a community has great interest in that issue. Violence prevention works well as a motivator. The general public hears about violence almost daily; and many citizens have a fear of violence and/or alter their activities to avoid violence. Other issues, even issues very important for the future of a community, do not necessarily benefit from this pre-existing awareness and concern.
If an issue has adequate salience, and if the other characteristics of success (noted earlier) become features of a new project, then replication seems possible.
The Initiative, so far, seems to work. As noted previously, it can sustain the motivation of participants. It can accomplish tasks. It seems to have the ability to attain the "intermediate level impacts" it seeks- changing policies, implementing programs, and influencing the knowledge and behaviors of key individuals related to education, the workplace, the faith community and so on. Based on this experience, it appears the Initiative merits continued effort, at least as long as violence remains an issue in Ramsey County, and at least until the enough time passes to see whether the Initiative produces long term benefits.[59]
The Initiative should look closely at how well its members represent the demographics of the community. Overall, most observers would probably rate the representation of people from different parts of the community on the Action Teams as anywhere from "good to excellent,"depending on the team. Nonetheless, Action Team participants in these five teams tend to be middle aged, well educated and mostly White.[60]
Racial group representation is statistically good, if one compares the Action Team members with the general population of the County. However, would the opportunity to address violence issues in minority communities be enhanced if participation by persons of color increased?
In terms of age, young people have high likelihood of involvement in violence, as perpetrators, victims, or both. Older people are often the most fearful of crime, and might be considered the most "vulnerable"(even if they are less often victimized than their younger counterparts). Would the effectiveness of the Initiative increase if it could bring more older and younger people into Action Team membership?[61]
The Initiative needs to increase its membership strategically, in a way that will appeal to more of the decision-makers within the focus areas addressed by the Initiative. For example, the experience of the Education Action Team showed the value of having significant involvement of educators on the teams. The experience of the Interfaith Team demonstrated how effectiveness can decline if not enough clergy participate on a team and take on the task of communicating with their colleagues.
Related to the previous observation, the interviews for this evaluation revealed a lack of awareness about the teams themselves among key staff in target organizations (schools, churches and businesses). The teams should consider developing ways to raise their visibility with groups such as principals, pastors, human resources professionals, and so on. If these staff had greater familiarity with the teams, they might be more likely to turn to the teams when they needed help with violence prevention activities. They would also have greater inclination to participate in forums and other activities put on by the teams.
Teams like the Education, Interfaith, and Workplace Teams have readily identifiable, clearly defined "target"institutions (churches, schools, companies, etc.) within their focus areas. These institutions have leaders who can influence other people associated with the institutions. Teams like the Media and Gun Violence Teams, on the other hand, don't have similar institutions associated with them. They address the larger environment. Their efforts might be channeled through institutions, but these institutions vary depending on the project. This creates different sets of strategic challenges for the two types of teams. It also presents different opportunities for maintaining the morale of team participants and identifying accomplishments. Members of the Media and Gun Violence Teams are probably less likely to see changes as a result of their actions, since any changes can become "lost"in the less defined arenas in which they work. Efforts to track results of specific actions may help increase motivation among members of these teams, and it might increase the teams' ability to systematically identify effective activities.
The Initiative might want to examine why some members become "inactive." Should and could anything be done to retain these people in the "active" category?
The Initiative should consider developing an overall record keeping plan for Action Teams. While many of the Initiative's activities and accomplishments are included in Appendix A, some undoubtedly do not appear there because they were not recorded anywhere. Lacking records of activities is a potential disadvantage, not only for evaluation, but also for planning and decision making. For example, newer members trying to plan activities cannot benefit from previous experience. Time and energy could be saved if members could look to earlier experiences of their own team and of other teams to identify potential options for action. This information could easily be compiled annually, so new members and leaders could learn from previous efforts, and information would be available for funders, evaluators and other interested parties.
The Initiative should consider increasing its efforts at gathering, analyzing, and reporting information about community issues. This will improve the ability of Action Teams to build community awareness; and heightened awareness will, in turn, improve the Action Teams' chances for success.
Activities of the Initiative should be well-informed, and research-driven, as much as possible. For example, Action Team members who plan forums or develop brochures should research the most effective formats for presenting information, and should, through careful research, identify the most appropriate level of information to present. The Initiative should go beyond simply gathering information, and should spend time analyzing and synthesizing it, and then should base decisions on this analysis and synthesis
In short, the Initiative, thus far, appears to be an effective innovation in community violence prevention. Based on this evaluation, the Initiative's unique structure displays many characteristics also important to successful community building. The parallel between this violence prevention initiative and an effective community building process makes good sense, and it indicates that the Initiative probably increases the sense of community for those Ramsey County residents who participate in it. If violence remains an important issue to Ramsey County community members, then the Initiative is a worthwhile effort to empower citizens to work together on violence prevention. If, in time, we see a reduction in violence, we will be able to draw relatively strong conclusions that the intermediate impacts identified in this evaluation led eventually to long term benefits. The Initiative should continue at least until enough experience exists to confirm or refute such conclusions.
Education Action Team
Gun Violence Action Team (GVAT)
Interfaith Action Team
Media Action Team
Workplace Action Team
Interfaith Action Team: Documentation of Resource Library Use
Table 14. Documentation of Activitites: Education Action Team
| Activity | Type of Activity/Description | Dates | Goal | Attendance or Distribution: Individuals and Organizations | Supporting Partners and/or Sponsors (Number of partners is estimated if available) | Additional Comments/Further Documentation of Goal Achievement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Violence Prevention Council Grants | Collaboration: on deciding how to use state money for violence prevention | 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 | Resource Change: Use of Funding | Decicions made by five school districts on how to use money. Eventual recipients are students, teachers, and administrators | Five: School Districts | Grants were awarded and used |
| Community Violence Prevention Council Grants | Grant:Suburban districts applied for grants together, to have a better chance of tetting them. | 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 | Resource Change: Funding | Money used by four suburban school districts: Amount not available for 1992. $3000 per district in 1993 through 1995 $1600 per district in 1996 $1000 per district in 1997 Eventual recipients are students, teachers and administrators | Four: School Districts | Grants were awarded and used |
| Violence Prevention and Intervention Strategies Sent Statewide | Information Source: A comprehensive list of strategies for prevention and intervention of violence in schools, adapted from Chemical Dependency Research | May, 1992 | Institutional Change and Resource Change: Services | Estimated at more than 2000. Every district in Minnesota received them and distributed them to schools as a resource for teachers and administrators. | No number available. Types: Government agencies, nonprofit organizations, arts organizations and school districts | Strategies are listed in Department of Children, Families & Learning booklets on violence prevention. Used in planning violence prevention strategies in schools across Minnesota |
| Peace is Not a Season Brochure Distribution | Information Source: Help with the distribution of a Wilder Foundation brochure | Sept., 1992 | Consciousness Raising, Education | An estimate of 70,000 were distributed to every student and all families in Ramsey County Schools | Number not available. Included government agency and a nonprofit organization | |
| Community Leadership Forum | Forum:Forum on how to address violence's impact on children, families, communities | Oct., 1993 | Institutional Change, Education | 238 participants from more than 150 organizations, such as businesses, government agencies, nonprofits, other action teams, schools, arts organization, and others | Number not available. Government agencies, nonprofits, other action teams, other school districts | Written evaluations with open-ended comments were completed and compiled by Ramsey County Staff |
| Two Day Workshop for Teachers on Violence Prevention | Training: About preventing violence in the classroom | Dec., 1993 | Consciousness Raising, Education | 300 teachers attended. Teachers were mainly from the White Bear Lake and Mousdsview school districts. | Five collaborators: Government agency and school districts | |
| Take Action Against Violence at School Brochure | Information Source: brochure in the shape of a Compact Disc cover with information for youth on defining acting against violence | Jan., 1994 | Resource Change: Skill Building, Consciousness Raising | At least 7600 distributed to students in Ramsey County | Ten: Government agencies, private businesses, nonprofit organizations, other action teams and a university | |
| Community Leadership Forum | Forum: Follow-up discussion from October, 1993 forum | May, 1994 | Institutional Change, Consciousness Raising, Education | 167 participants from 130 different organizations were on the roster. Organizations included government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, other action teams, arts organizations and schools. | Eight: Government agencies, nonprofits, other action teams and other school districts | Based on the opinion of some team members, this forum was a disappointment. It served to "teach the team that forums aren't always the answer to get things done." |
| Violence is Breaking up Families. Help! Brochure | Information Source: Brochure includes information about the Education Team | July, 1994 | Consciousness Raising | Estimated at 1000. Sent to nonprofit and human service organizations, schools, government agencies | No Collaboration | |
| What do Role Models Look Like Brochure | Information Source: Brochure to help teachers and adults who work with youth create a safe school environment and recognize their impact on youth | March, 1995 | Consciousness Raising, Education, Resource Change | At least 9200 have been distributed to teachers, church members, leaders and other community members. These brochures continue to be distributed. | Seven: Government agency, nonprofits, other action teams, public and private schools | |
| Pencils with Nonviolent Message | Media Event/Campaign: pencils with "I will not use my words or my body to scare, hurt or hit anyone" on the side | Aug., 1995 | Consciousness Raising | At least 32,000 distributed to government agencies, private businesses, nonprofits, other action teams, schools, churches, colleges | One: The Media Action Team | |
| Violence Hurts People, Families and Communitites (Root Causes) Brochure | Information Source: Booklet on types of violence and how to prevent or stop violence | Dec., 1995 | Consciousness Raising, Education | At least 15,100 were sent to schools and distributed in Ramsey County to professionals, students, teachers and parents | Ten: Government agencies, nonprofit organizations, other action teams | Requests for this resource continue to come in |
| Keeping an Eye on the Goal | Forum: Meeting with coaches and athletic directors about violence in high school sports | Oct., 1996 | Institutional Change, Consciousness Raising, Education | 78 participants, mainly from schools and government agencies, including teachers, coaches, athletic directors and student athletes | Five: Government agencies, businesses, nonprofits | A poster called Coaches Code of Conduct was developed through this forum |
| Stop the Violence Presentation at the Metrodome/Twins Game | Public Relations/Media Event: Presentation related to Coaches Code of Conduct | May, 1997 | Consciousness Raising, Education and Reducation of Violent Messages | Estimated at more than 20,000 in attendance at the baseball game where this occurred | Five: Government agencies, private businesses | |
| Coaches' Code of Conduct Poster | Information Source: A poster listing a "code" for coaches to follow to promote non-violence and provide a positive example | Sept., 1997 | Institutional Change, Consciousness Raising, Education, Reduction of Violent Messages | At least 1500 were distributed to high school coaches in five Ramsey County districts. | Not Available: Coaches and athletic directors who participated in "Keepingan Eye on the Goal" collaborated with the team to create this. | According to the Education Team, this is the first time all high schools in Ramsey County have worked together to create a resource and then implemented it. |
Table 15. Documentation of Activities: Gun Violence Team (GVAT)
| Activity | Type of Activity/Description | Dates | Goal | Attendance or Distribution: Individuals and Organizations | Supporting Partners and/or Sponsors (Number of partners is estimated if available) | Additional Comments/Further Documentation of Goal Achievement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collaborated on "Calling the Shots" Youth Intervention Project | Hands-on Experience: The GVAT played a role in helping organize an emergency room experience for at-risk youth, simulating a gun death | 1994 | Helping another organization accomplish consciousness raising, education | Number not available. Organizations using service were juvenile correctional services, recipients were at-risk youth. | Government agencies, one hospital | |
| What's the Second Biggest Killer of Minnesota Kids? Brochure | Information Source: Brochure and poster with strategies for preventing gun tragedies in homes, families and neighborhoods | Oct., 1995 | Resource Change: Services, Consciousness Raising | 2000 were distributed to government agencies, nonprofits, other action teams and schools. Recipients included professionals, students, church members, leaders, teachers and others. | One private business collaborated with the Team on this effort | |
| Defeated Legislative Effort to Expand Concealed Weapons Rights (2 Years) | Legislation/Lobbying: Opposed and defeated legislative effort to expand concealed weapons rights | April 1996 and April 1997 | Legislative Change (In this case, effort were to avoid change) | State Legislators were the recipients of the lobbying effort | Five: Nonprofits, professional associations, other action teams, government agencies | Lobbying is still in progress. Legislation has not passed so far. |
| Joyce Foundation Grant | Grant: Grant for funding a public health approach to gun violence in Minnesota | Sept., 1996 | Resource Change: Funding, Consciousness Raising | $158,700 grant to be used in several efforts by four organizations, including Governement agencies and nonprofit organizations, who are listed in the application as co-applicants | Four: Nonprofits, government agencies | Some money used to establish "Listening Posts" in Ramsey County and Duluth |
| Here's the Pitch: Take Action for Non-Violence | Information Source: Brochure to be distributed at "Stop the Violence Day" at the Metrodome/Twins Game | Sept, 1996 and May 1997 | Consciousness Raising, Education | At least 15,000 were distributed at two baseball games | Nine: Government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, other action teams, a government offical, a professional association | This effort helped establish a relationship with the Minnesota Twins, for future efforts |
| Community Forum 1 at Thomas-Dale Block Club | Forum: Acommunity meeting about gun violence | March, 1997 | Consciousness Raising | 30 participants from the community | Three: Nonprofit organizations and government agency | A summary of themes from this discussion was completed by facilitators |
| Community Forum 2 at Hamline-Midway Coalition | Forum: A community meeting about gun violence | June, 1997 | Consciousness Raising | 16 participants from the community | Three: Nonprofit organizations and government agency | A summary of themes from this discussion was completed by facilitators |
| Community Forum 3 at Hallie Q Brown, MLK Center | Forum: A community meeting about gun violence | June, 1997 | Consciousness Raising | 15 participants from the community | Three: Nonprofit organizations and government agency | A summary of themes from this discussion was completed by facilitators |
| Community Forum at Lao Family Community of Minnesota | Forum: A scheduled community meeting about gun violence, focusing on Hmong population | June, 1997 | Consciousness Raising | No participants showed at this meeting | Nonprofit organizations and government agency | This time was spent planning some structured interviews with Hmong community leaders, to gather the information missed at the forum that did not occur |
| Proposed Legislation to Lift Pre-emption | Legislation/lobbying: Proposed legislation to lift pre-emption, giving local governments more power to regulate guns | 1997 | Legislative Change | Not Applicable | Four: Government agencies, nonprofits, professional association | The legislation did not pass |
| Propsed Legislation to Limit the Purchase of Handguns | Legislation/lobbying: Proposed legislation to limit the purchase of handguns to one per month, per individual | 1997 | Legislative Change | Not Applicable | One Nonprofit organization | Lobbying is still in progress. Legislation has not passed so far. |
| Collaboration on "Students Stop Guns" posters | Collaboration: Helped a student group and public relations firm create and distribute posters abous a Gun Tipline | Nont Available | Consciousness Raising, Education, Institutional Change | No records on distribution, becuase the GVAT only helped with this effort. Distribution was largely in the schools | Business, other action teams, student group |
Table 16. Documentation of Activities: Interfaith Action Team
| Activity | Type of Activity/Description | Dates | Goal | Attendance or Distribution: Individuals and Organizations | Supporting Partners and/or Sponsors (Number of partners is estimated if available) | Additional Comments/Further Documentation of Goal Achievement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Covenant/Call to Action for Religious Groups | Information Source: Brochure asking congregations to make a covenant with the St. Paul Area Council of churches to act against violence (congregations were asked to sign their church to it). Brochure also includes suggestions on how to act agaisnt violence. | On-going | Institutional Change, Consciousness Raising, Education | Number Not Available. Distributed to religious organizations | Five: Government agencies, nonprofits | |
| Bookmark with messages about non-violence | Information Source: Bookmark with messages about nonviolence | About 1993 | Consciousness Raising | At least 4671 were distributed through the Resource Library, to people from religious organizations | None documented | |
| Healing the Sacred Trust: Creating a Community of Hope | Forum: An all day training for clergy and lay leaders about family violence | May, 1993 | Institutional Change, Education | 160 clergy and lay leaders, from 15 denominations attended the forum. 250 to 300 people attended the "Service of Healing" in the evening- a church service dedicated to this effort. | Eight: Government agencies, nonprofits, churches | |
| Help with promotion of "From the Mountain Top" play | Arts Event: A musical put on to raise awareness about family violence | Oct., 1993 | Consciousness Raising | An estimated 250 people attended, from a variety of organizations | One: Nonprofit organization | |
| Survey of East Metro Faith Community Leaders | Survey and Report: Amy Okaya, team member, conducted a survey of clergy to assess needs and identify resources in the community | Jan., 1994 | Needs Assessment | The report was based on responses of 199 clergy and other leaders in the East Metro area, from a variety of religions, who responded to the survey. The Interfaith Action Team used information in the report for planning | Amy Okaya and the University of Minnesota provided design, technical assistance, and reporting for this study. | |
| Assistance with "Surely Heed Their Cry" Workshop | Forum: A workshop put on by Congregations Concerned for Children for clergy and lay leaders to educate about how the religious community can intervene with child abouse | May, 1995 | Institutional Change, Consciousness Raising, Education | 57 people attended, from 35 congregations | Fourteen: Government agency, nonprofit, religious groups, schools | According to the St. Paul Area Council of Churches, 10 churches have changed their formal policies on dealing with child abuse. |
| Interfaith Family Violence Prevention Resource Center | Information Source: A library for resource and services related to the faith community and violence issues | Started in Sept. 1995. On-going | Institutional Change, Resource Change, Consciousness Raising, Education | At least 39 products, including videos, brochures and books, are on record as having been lent out or taken for distribution. According to library records, these 39 products had a circulation of 7235 through September of 1997. Most circulation went to individuals from religious organizations and other nonprofit organizations. This includes items that were taken and distributed, and items that were signed out and returned. | Number not available: Government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, other action teams | See listing of documented circulation at the end of this Appendix for an indication of the library's use. (The listing includes library check-outs that were recorded. Undocumented check-outs and visits are not counted in this listing.) |
| Help with Design and Promotion of Violence: What Can a Person Do? Play | Arts Event: A musical to raise awareness about violence and the capacity for violence in all of us. The team helped other groups who put on this event | Oct., 1995 | Institutional Change, Consciousness Raising | An estimated 1000 people attended, from government agencies, nonprofits, other action teams, schools and churches | six: Government agency, nonprofit, business, other action teams, arts organization, university | |
| Assisted with Child Abuse Prevention Packet | Information Source: Packet of information on child abuse prevention | Feb., 1996 | Consciousness Raising, Education | Not available | The Interfaith Team collaborated with Congregations Concerned for Children | |
| Assisted wit hBlue Ribbon Campaign to End Child Abuse | Collaboration and Bulic Relations Event: congregations Concerned for Children coordinated a campaign where people wore blue ribbons to raise awareness about child abuse. The Interfaith Team helped with this. | April, 1996 | Consciousness Raising | 6080 ribbons were distributed to religious organizations | The Interfaith Team collaborated with Congregations Concerned for Children | |
| Distributed Violence Prevention Calendar | Public Relations/Media Event, Information Source: Poster | April, 1996 | Consciousness Raising | 700 distributed to congregations, religious denominational offices, and other action teams | Four: Government agencies, nonprofits | |
| 3 Dialogues: Building Community Bridges for Children and Families | Forum: Discussions about building relationships between congregations and systems or community agencies that deal with children | Nov., 1996 | Institutional Change, Consciousness Raising, Education | A total of 62 people attended these activities (about one third at each). They were from government agencies, nonprofits, and churches. | At least 30 groups, from 3 counties, collaborated on this, including government agencies, nonprofits, and others | According to Congregations Concerned for Children, evaluations said people learned how Child Protection works and that Child Protection wanted to work with the church. Participants also said they were planning to do trainings with Sunday School teachers, inviting Child Protection to speak |
| Speakers' Bureau List | Information Source: A list of potential speakers who could give talks on family violence in churches or other organizations. The list is kept in the Resource Library | Not Available | Resource Change | No record of the number of groups who have used the list. It was designed for visitors of the Resource Library, to benefit religious organizations | One: Government Agency (money from the state helped fund this) | According to a representative of the Interfaith Team, although the list includes a great deal of information, it has been used very little, and was possibly going to be removed from the library because it was out of date. The representative said the team had difficulty updating the list and promoting it. |
Table 17. Documentation of Activities: Media Action Team
| Activity | Type of Activity/Description | Dates | Goal | Attendance or Distribution: Individuals and Organizations | Supporting Partners and/or Sponsors (Number of partners is estimated if available) | Additional Comments/Further Documentation of Goal Achievement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Campaigned to Stop Violent Snyder Drug Ad Campaign | Media Event: Asked Synder Drug to remove "Punch Out a Pharmacist" ad campaign | April, 1993 | Reduction of violent messages | Not applicable | None | Synder Drug agreed to remove the advertisement |
| Take Action Against Violence on Campus- Brochure | Information Source: Brochure shaped like a compact disc cover about how violence affects students on campus (focused on college students) | Sept., 1993 | Institutional Change, Resource Change, Consciousness Raising, Education | 2500 were distributed to seven area colleges and universities | Nine: Government agencies, nonprofits and universities | Colleges and universities conducted their own "violence-free campus" campaigns with these brochures. The brochure inspired the Education Team to create a similar one for high school students |
| Campaigned To Revmove Violent University of Minnesota Athletic Ad Campaign | Media Event: Successful attempt to get the U of M to stop running "Pain Suffereing, Brutality for $8" ad campaign from MTC buses | Sept., 1993 | Reduction of Violent Messages, Institutional Change, Consciousness Raising | Not Applicable | None | The advertisement was removed from MTC buses. |
| Campaigned To Stop Rainbow Foods From Selling Toy Guns | Public Relations/Media Event: Successful attempt to get Rainbow to stop merchandising toy guns | Jan., 1994 | Institutional Change, Consciousness Raising, Reduction of Violent Messages | Not Applicable | One: Nonprofit organization | Rainbow Foods stopped selling toy guns at Christmas time. This has sustained to the present |
| What do Role Models Look Like- Brochure | Information Source: Brochure to help young adults who work with youth (for example, camp counselors) be positive role models and create a safe environment | Jan., 1994 | Resource Change, Consciousness Raising, Education | At least 1178 distributed (this is the documented number, and many more have been distributed but not documented) to government agencies, nonprofits, other action teams and schools and colleges | Ten: Government agencies, businesses, nonprofits | This product was recreated for use with teachers (for the Education Action Team). According to Initiative staff the product was so well- received that it "established momentum for the Media team." |
| Helped Campaign to Remove The "Whip Me, Crack Me, Beat Me" Billboards For The Uptowner Cafe | Media Event: Along with several other organizations, influenced the Uptowner Cafe to remove a violent advertising campaign | March, 1994 | Institutional Change, Consciousness Raising, Reduction of Violent Messages | Not Applicable | Twelve: Nonprofits, other community groups | Billboards were removed |
| Buttons | Information Source: 3 buttons with nonviolent messages: "Think Safe, Feel Safe, Be Safe," "Violence is Words and Actions that Hurt People" (also available in Spanish) | Sept., 1994 | Consciousness Raising | At least 1000 distributed to government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, other action teams, arts organizations, schools and others, according to Initiative staff | Five: Government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, other action teams | Other organizations have developed buttons based on this one |
| Public Service Announcements | Public Relations/Media Event: Television ads promoting non-violence and addressing various components of violence | Shown regularly. Designed in 1994 and 1995 | Institutional Change, Resource Change, Consciousness Raising, Education | Distributed to 19 television stations in Minnesota, and to 50 other groups, including schools, cable television, other action teams, nonprofits, businesses and coummunity groups | About 20 collaborators: Government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, other action teams, and a nationally known pop music band (October Project), along with a television station and several personnel. Time was volunteered; all ads run for free | According to the Initiative staff, this project helped establish a partnership with KTCS-Channel 2 television station, allowing for other in-kind donations and showing that this type of activity can be done with liitle or no money |
| Violence, What Can a Person Do? Brochure/Program for Play | Information Source: A brochure for follow-up discussion at a violence prevention musical play, put on in part by the Interfaith Team | Sept., 1995 | Consciousness Raising, Education | Estimated 1000 distributed to audience of play | Estimated 10 collaborators: Government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, other action teams, arts organizations and churches | |
| Parenting Messages Group: Magnest and Posters | Spin-off: A new action team was formed from existing media team members to focus on positive parenting messages. Products developed in English, Spanish and Hmong, and distributed at production cost | May, 1996 to present | Institutional Change, Consciousness Raising, Education | This group has created and distributed at least 216,000 magnets and 17,000 posters with messages about nonviolent parenting. They have been distributed to health maintenance organizations, relgious organizations, government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, and others | Fifteen: Government agencies, health maintenance organizations, businesses, nonprofits, other action teams | According to Initiative staff, these products sparked health care organizations to discuss and acknowledge nonviolent parenting. The Team received a $19000 grant to distribute magnets to other organizations and to have related training sessions. |
| Men's Messages Project (Phone Line and Ads) | Spin-off: A gropu created from existing Media Team members to create messages and resources for men and people who know men. A crisis phone line was dedicated to men, and advertisements were created | June, 1996 to present | Institutional Change, Resource Change (services), Consciousness Raising, Education, Reduction of violent messages | 10,000 cards distributed with men's Phone Line number. Distributed through government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, otheraction teams, health care organizations, churches, schools, others. Advertisements placed in 50 men's bathrooms for four months | Fifteen: Government agencies, private businesses, nonprofits, other action teams, arts organizations, other initiatives | Between July 1, 1997 and January 7, 1998 the phone line received 199 calls. Calls were from the targeted population: Men on the verge of hurting someone. Records are being kept of calls for future analysis |
| Helped campaign to Remove Guess Jeans ad nationwide | Media Event: Played major leadership role in successful national effort to have Guess Jeans pull the "Cinema Verite" ad campaign | June, 1996 | Institutional Change, Consciousness Raising, Reduction of Violent Messages | Not Applicable | Many: This was a national effort. Collaboration included government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, other action teams, arts organizations, and faith community leaders | Advertisement was removed |
| Campaigned to Remove a WCHA Hockey Ad | Media Event: In conjunction with several other groups, successfully campaigned for WCHA to remove "Not Getting Any Lately..." ad campaign | Jan., 1997 | Institutional Change, Consciousness Raising, Reduction of Violent Messages | Not Applicable | Three: Government agencies and businesses | Advertisement was removed |
| You Can Respond to the Media- Brochure | Information Source: Brochure designed to show people how to respond to violent messages in media (ideas of how to contact media representatives, etc.) | Oct., 1997 | Consciousness Raising, Education | 1000 have been distributed so far to Government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, and other action teams. | One: Nonprofit | |
| Reporters/Editors Guide (in progress) | Information Source: Resource guide for reporters and editors to use for obtaining information regarding violence, and for reporting these topics in a sensitive, responsible way | In progress | Institutional Change, Resource Change, Education, Reduction of Violent Messages | Not Available-Guide is still in progress. Designed for media organizations and nonprofits | About 30: Government agencies, businesses, nonprofits |
Table 18. Documentation of Activities: Workplace Action Team
| Activity | Type of Activity/Description | Dates | Goal | Attendance or Distribution: Individuals and Organizations | Supporting Partners and/or Sponsors (Number of partners is estimated if available) | Additional Comments/Further Documentation of Goal Achievement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grants for Community Violence Prevention Council | Grant: Received through a collaborative application with other action teams | 1992, 1993, and 1994 | Institutional Change, Resource Change (funding), Education | $9000 received by the team | 22: Government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, other action teams, arts organizations | Money used to: 1. Create two plays on workplace violence prevention 2. Pay for production of workplace violence video 3. Initial printings of workplace violence workbooks 4. Underwrite the costs of the first phase of workplace forums |
| Workplace Forums on Violence: First Phase | Forum: Forums at Land O'Lakes and Honeywell. The goal was to raise awareness about family violence | Feb., 1993 | Consciousness Raising | 69 employees and leaders from businesses | Number not available: Businesses | |
| Plays: "Unless There's Blood" and "From the Ground Up" | Arts Event/Performance: Two plays about violence in the workplace, performed at forums put on by the team and elsewhere | April 1993 and Jan., 1996 | Institutional Change, Consciousness Raising, Education, Indvidual/Organizational Behavior Change | At least 375 people saw these plays at forums at Honeywell, St. Paul Companies, Dakota County and University of St. Thomas. | Five: Government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, arts organization | Plays are now performed nationwide. According to Initiative staff, plays are "very popular" in training evaluations |
| Workplace Violence Workbook and Resource Guide | Information Source: A guide for workplace to implement violence prevention strategies, provided for an affordable price | March, 1994 | Institutional Change, Resource Change, Consciousness Raising, Education | 150 have been sold, and many have been donated, to businesses, government agencies and nonprofits | Fifteen: Government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, arts organizations | 1. The Ramsey County Workplace Action Team (a team developed among employees or Ramsey County, in part as a result of this team) developed a Workplace Violence Policy and this was adopted by the County Board of Commissioners 2. Many Twin Cities businesses have also implemented violence prevention policies |
| Workplace Violence/Bad Business- Brochure | Information Source: Brochure describing the Initiative and the Workplace Team | June,1994 | Resource Change, Consciousness Raising, Marketing | Estimated 10,000 distributed to an estimated 1000 organizations, including government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, other action teams, arts organizations, schools and others | No collaborators | |
| "What do Supervisors Look Like"- Brochure | Information Source: Brochure to educate supervisors and employers on changing management styles | Sept., 1994 | Institutional Change, Resource Change, Consciousness Raising, Education and Skill Building/Behavior Change | Over 5000 estimated distributed to more than 500 organizations including government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, other action teams, arts organizations, and schools. The brochure was designed for supervisors and leaders | Eight: Government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, the Media Action Team | According to Initiative staff the brochure is "used by undreds of organizations as a training tool for supervisors." |
| World Premier of Video (To be added to Workbook Guide) | Public Relations Event: Black-tie celebration and public relations event for workplace violence training video | Completed in 1994, added to guide in Aug. 1995 | Institutional Change, Resource Change, Consciousness Raising, Education | At least 150 in circulation (along with the Workbook) at government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, and elsewhere | Fifteen: Government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, other action teams, art organizations, a television station | See comments with Workboodk and Resource Guide. According to Initiative staff this was an example of a collaboration that would normally be quite expensive, but was successfully completed through in-kind donations and cooperation between groups. |
| Workplace Forums on Violence: Second Phase | Forum: Forums at 3M, St. Paul Companies and the University of St. Thomas. Goals wer to raise awareness and teach conflict resolution skills | Nov., 1995 and May 1996 | Consciousness Raising, Education | At least 191 employees from businesses and universities | Number not available: Businesses, universitites | |
| Posters for Workplaces | Information Source: A set of posters for workplaces. These were never printed or distributed, although they were developed | June, 1996 | Consciousness Raising | No Distribution | Three: Nonprofits, other action teams, arts organization | The posters have not yet been distributed |
| Take Action for a Violence-Free Workplace- Brochure | Information Source: Brochure that was put in envelopes with paychecks of all elmployees in companies working with the United Way | June, 1996 | Institutional Change, Consciousness Raising, Education | Over 5000 were distributed to government agencies, businesses, nonprofits, other action teams, arts organizations and schools | Four: Nonprofits, other action teams, arts organizations | The Amherst H. Wilder Foundation used the information to develop a similar brochure for its own empoyees |
| Workplace Forums on Violence: Third Phase | Forum: Forums at Dakota County and Metro State focused on Family Violence and how the workplace should respond | Oct., 1996 | Consciousness Raising, Education | 115 employees of government agencies and universities | Number not available: Government agencies, businesses | This format for a forum is now being used by the Minnesota Health Care Coalition on Violence |
Table 19. Interfaith Action Team: Documentation of Resource Library Use
| NAME/TITLE OF ITEM | TYPE OF ITEM | TOTAL CIRCULATED | TOTAL FOR TYPE OF ITEM |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abuse and Religion | book | 1 | |
| Guide my Feet | book | 1 | |
| Keeping the Faith | book | 1 | |
| Root Causes | book | 40 | 43 |
| About Parenting | booklet | 1 | |
| Stress and Your Child | booklet | 1 | |
| Disciplining Your Child | booklet | 1 | |
| Unspecified | booklet | 3 | |
| Violence | booklet | 15 | |
| What Can I Do to Prevent Harm to Children? | booklet | 25 | |
| Religious Counties Response (??) | booklet | 50 | |
| Inter-Faith Action Team (about the team) | booklet | 63 | 159 |
| Bookmarks | bookmarks | 4,671 | 4,671 |
| Srely Heed Their Cry | brochure/pamplet | 6 | |
| Violence Hurst People, Families... | brochure/pamplet | 10 | |
| Inform Inserts | brochure/pamplet | 20 | |
| Hear Cries | brochure/pamplet | 25 | |
| When a Child is Abused | brochure/pamplet | 50 | |
| (on domestic violence) | brochure/pamplet | 60 | |
| (on child abuse) | brochure/pamplet | 100 | |
| What you need to know if a child is being abused | brochure/pamplet | 222 | |
| Unspecified | brochure/pamplet | 288 | |
| What every congregation needs to know | brochure/pamplet | 600 | |
| Covenant | brochure/pamplet | 681 | 2,062 |
| Involve Calendars | calendar | 20 | 20 |
| Unspecified | flyers | 100 | 100 |
| Initiative Update | newsletters | 50 | 50 |
| Unspecified | posters | 4 | |
| What Can I Do About Family Violence | posters | 50 | |
| Initiative Posters | posters | 50 | 104 |
| Praying isn't enough | unspecified | 1 | |
| Boys wil be boys | unspecified | 1 | |
| Reducing the risk | unspecified | 1 | 3 |
| A Better Chance for Children | video | 1 | |
| Bless our children | video | 2 | |
| A Matter of Culture | video | 3 | |
| Broken vows | video | 4 | |
| Hear their Cries | video | 8 | |
| Peace Pilgrim | video and books | 5 | 23 |
| Total Circulation | 7235 | 7235 |
[1] See: Mattessich, Paul and Barbara Monsey, Community Building: What Makes It Work. Saint Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 1997.
[2] Several Initiative Action Teams not involved in this evaluation are more culturally specific, and may be more culturally diverse in their membership. These teams include: Hmoob Thaj Yeeb (Hmong Peace), Imani (Faith) Action Team, Latino-Chicano Community Action Team, and Strong Hearts of the Circle.
[3] That is, at least until it can be seen that the intermediate level impacts of the Initiative lead to reduction of violence in the community
[4] The indicators identified in the guide might eventually be used over the course of many years to measure changes in violence levels. This would offer one of several possible ways to understand the long term impacts of the Initiative. For several reasons outlined in the introductory sections of this report, this evaluation focuses on measuring intermediate impacts, rather than on the ultimate goal of reducing violent activity.
[5] This term is used very generally to include any output from an Action Team, even just a meeting of members to learn something or share experiences.
[6] "Products" is used broadly to include any of the many things an Action Team could do, including distributing information, distributing posters, putting on a meeting or presentation, developing a curriculum, and so on.
[7] The five teams were selected based on members' interest in participating in the evaluation and on the length of time they had been part of the Initiative. An effort was made to select teams which had been involved since the early stages of the Initiative.
[8] Therefore, it is possible that other activities may have been completed since that time.
[9] Excluding the first year, 1992.
[10] That is, the five teams selected to be part of the evaluation.
[11] Available through Ramsey County.
[12] Other Action Teams of the Initiative, not included in this evaluation, would probably show a higher percentage of people of color, as their focus areas are culturally specific. These teams include: Hmoob Thaj Yeeb (Hmong Peace), Imani (Faith) Action Team, Latino-Chicano Community Action Team, and Strong Hearts of the Circle.
[13] Ways mentioned by between 2 and 5 percent of respondents.
[14] Four to 6 percent of respondents listed each of these reasons.
[15] A complete list of responses appears in Appendix B, available from Ramsey County.
[16] These were largely inactive members.
[17] The three people who said they did not know Ramsey County sponsored the Initiative were not asked to answer any additional questions about the role of Ramsey County. As a result, 120 members responded to the rest of the questions related to Ramsey County's role.
[18] This is 43 percent of 109 people who felt they knew enough about the Initiative to answer this question.
[19] A full list of responses appears in Appendix B, available through Ramsey County.
[20] A more detailed explanation of the sampling process for each team appears in upcoming sections which report the results of each team's interview.
[21] We attempted to get a representative sampling of the community for each interview. However, note that sample sizes are small.
[22] We had to modify the sampling plan for St. Paul, to stay within the targeted number of interviews (which was between 30 and 40) and still have a representation of different districts and school levels. Because St. Paul has more elementary schools than all of the suburban districts combined, and because members of the Education Team thought it was less likely that we would find Initiative-related information in the elementary schools in St. Paul than in other districts, we only interviewed staff from about 15 percent (7) of St. Paul's elementary schools. We did, however, interview staff from about half of the middle and high schools in all the districts, and from half of the suburban elementary schools. In cases where there was only one middle or high school in a district, we always included that school.
[23] In Appendix A we provide numbers indicating the actual distribution of products and attendance at events. That documentation provides a different perspective than this interview on the activities of the Education Team.
[24] Eight of these eleven respondents had not responded affirmatively when asked if the Education Team had worked with their school.
[25] These results are based on such a small fraction of the sample that they are not statistically strong. However, we present them in an effort to identify any leads we have regarding impacts of the team.
[26] All percentages in this section are based on the total sample of 37 respondents.
[27] Percentages in this section are based on answers from between 16 and 31 respondents, depending on how many had reported that they had the specified service or program in the first place. Appendix C (available upon request from Ramsey County staff) includes tables for each item, listing the number of respondents who answered it.
[28] Note that the environment in the schools is very different from the environment the Interfaith Team faces in the churches (discussed below), where generating awareness is the primary concern.
[29] A complete listing of the activities of the Gun Violence Action Team appears in Appendix A.
[30] Detailed in Appendix A.
[31] Several questions in this interview were based on a written needs assessment survey that Amy Okaya conducted for the Interfaith Action Team in 1994: Okaya, Amy (1994) A Needs Assessment of East Metropolitan Religious Leaders Regarding Family Violence. School of Public Health, University of Minnesota.
[32] We had established a target of 30 complete interviews out of a sample of 40. However, after many attempts to contact all 40 churches, we only completed 17 interviews. To increase the number of respondents, we repeated the three steps above, selecting another 40 potential respondents. From these, we were able to contact another 13 respondents, leading to a final set of 30 completed interviews, or about 37 percent of the sample of 80. We repeatedly tried to contact clergy from all 80 organizations, but many never returned our calls. For half of the sample (40 churches), we left messages but never got through to find out why the respondents were not interested in completing the interview. Six churches' phones were either disconnected or listed as the wrong number.
[33] A complete listing of the denominations of respondents can be found in Appendix C, available through Ramsey County.
[34] We also mentioned the Inter-Religious Task Force, the previous name of the team.
[35] Of these six, three were people who reported that their organization had not had any contact with the Team. Therefore, this question did detect some additional use of the team's services, even though the respondents were unaware of the team's interaction with their church.
[36] A complete description of this mailing is listed in Appendix A.
[37] A complete listing of the activities sponsored by the Interfaith Action Team appears in Appendix A.
[38] A complete listing of groups listed appears in Appendix C, available through Ramsey County.
[39] A complete listing of the changes respondents listed appears in Appendix C, available through Ramsey County.
[40] A complete listing of the 12 examples appears in Appendix C (available through Ramsey County), along with a listing of the types of resources provided by these groups. Also, Table 7 shows the organizations that are related to the Interfaith Team.
[41] These items were taken almost directly from the written survey conducted by Amy Okaya in 1993, cited earlier. Unfortunately, the small size of this sample along with the difference in formats between the two studies (written survey versus telephone interview) make it impossible to interpret any differences between 1993 and 1997. Generally, Ms. Okaya's results were similar to those reported here.
[42] As noted previously, however, sample size is small, so results may not generalize to all churches in Ramsey County.
[43] Ms. Okaya's research, cited earlier, addressed this issue, and it uncovered specific trends related to the lack of interest among religious leaders from specific denominations and religions.
[44] A detailed description of the activities of the Media Team appears in Appendix A.
[45] Some readers may disagree and feel that analysis of the Media Team could include research into its intermediate impacts. We welcome suggestions on this point.
[46] See Appendix A for details.
[47] This type of action plan may actually already occur in the Media Team's efforts to create materials. However, it might be helpful to list activities that are essential to an effective resource.
[48] For a more detailed description of these forums and other activities of the Workplace Action Team, see the Documentation of Activities in Appendix A.
[49] As noted earlier, the Workplace Team Intermediate Impact Interviews were with organizations known to have particiapted in Team activities. This approach differs from that taken with the Education and Interfaith Team, where interview respondents were selected from all schools and churches in Ramsey County, regardless of their previous contact with the teams.
[50] For more information on this product and other activities of the Workplace Team, see the Activities Documentation in Appendix A.
[51] A complete listing of responses to this question appears in Appendix C, available through Ramsey County.
[52] Ramsey County staff reviewed the list of organizations mentioned by respondents and identified those that may be related to the Workplace Team.
[53] All organizations, related to the Workplace Team or not, were listed by either one or two people.
[54] This book provides a review of existing literature on community building initiatives, synthesizes the findings of studies of community building efforts, and identifies the characteristics of a community that make it a likely candidate for successful community building. The book also identifies characteristics of the community building process that make success more probable. See: Mattessich, Paul, and Barbara Monsey, Community Building: What Makes It Work. Saint Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 1997.
[55] And, of course, Ramsey County government and its staff, do themselves comprise a part of the community.
[56] In 1998, Wilder Research Center will be doing a more in-depth analysis of the leadership of the Initiative, and will produce another report on this topic.
[57] These characteristics were also identified through the synthesis of research on community building in Community Building: What Makes It Work, cited earlier.
[58] According to Ramsey County staff, at least six communities are currently trying to replicate the Initiative in some way. These communities are: Hennepin County, MN; Anoka County, MN; Rochester, MN; St. Louis County, MN; Traverse City, MI; and the Quad Cities of Iowa and Illinois.
[59] That is, at least until it can be seen that the intermediate level impacts of the Initiative lead to reduction of violence in the community.
[60] As noted earlier, other Action Teams (not part of this evaluation) are culturally specific and probably do include a more diverse membership.
[61] Ramsey County recently received a planning grant from the Knight Foundation for the development of a similar initiative involving and focusing on youth.
