Codeveloping theories of change for improved community-based violence intervention evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Community-based violence intervention (CVI) programs are considered important strategies for preventing community violence and promoting health and safety. Mixed and inconclusive results from some prior CVI evaluations, as well as our general lack of understanding about the reasons for such varied findings, may be explained in part by misalignment of program theories of change and evaluation measures. Furthermore, most prior evaluations have focused solely on deficit-based outcomes; this narrow focus is inconsistent with the premise of CVI and may fail to capture improvements in health and well-being that are on the hypothesized pathway from intervention to violence reduction. METHODS: This article describes the process and results of codeveloping a theory of change for community-based youth firearm violence intervention and prevention programs in Washington state through a community-researcher partnership. We followed a multistep iterative process, involving (1) CVI program documentation review, (2) individual meetings, and (3) a day-long workshop. RESULTS: The theory of change included six key domains: (1) root causes, (2) promotive factors, (3) activities, (4) intermediate outcomes, (5) longer-term outcomes, and (6) multilevel context (youth/family, staff/organizational, community, and societal). Root causes were social and structural drivers of community violence. Promotive factors were assets and resources among the community, youth/their families, and community organizations that promote health and safety. Activities were supports and services the program provided to youth and their families, staff, and, potentially, the broader community. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes were the changes among youth, their families, staff, and the community that resulted from program activities. Intermediate outcomes may be felt within 6 months to 1 year, and longer-term outcomes may be felt after 1 to 2 years and beyond. CONCLUSION: The theory of change we codeveloped provides a common lens to conceptualize, compare, and evaluate CVI programs in Washington state and may support more rigorous and equity-centered evaluations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test/Criteria; Level V.

Fidelity Assessment of a Social Work-Led Intervention Among Patients with Firearm Injuries.

PURPOSE: To support future development and refinement of social work-led intervention programs among patients with firearm injuries and to demonstrate how a fidelity assessment can be used to adjust and refine intervention delivery in an ongoing trial. METHODS: We conducted a fidelity assessment of a randomized controlled trial of a social work-led intervention among patients with a firearm injury. RESULTS: We found that our study intervention was well implemented, meeting 70% of the fidelity assessment score items, however noted lower fidelity with client-based items. DISCUSSION: As a result of fidelity assessment findings, we refined intervention delivery to improve implementation fidelity including beginning to review cases of all patients each month, rather than focusing on patients in crisis. Our fidelity assessment process and findings offer insight into the challenges of implementing an intervention among patients with firearm injuries and highlights the value of monitoring intervention fidelity during an ongoing trial.