Outcomes, Data, and Indicators of Violence at the Community Level

Abstract

Youth violence is a major problem in the United States. It remains the third leading cause of death among youth between the ages of 10 and 24 years and the leading cause of death in Blacks between 10 and 24 years of age. In its effort to prevent youth violence, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention funds six Youth Violence Prevention Centers (YVPCs) to design, implement and evaluate community-based youth violence prevention programs. These Centers rely on surveillance data to monitor youth violence and evaluate the impact of their interventions. In public health, surveillance entails a systematic collection and analysis of data, typically within defined populations. In the case of youth violence, surveillance data may include archival records from medical examiners, death certificates, hospital discharges, emergency room visits, ambulance pickups, juvenile justice system intakes, police incident reports, and school disciplinary incidents and actions. This article illustrates the process the YVPCs used for collecting and utilizing youth violence surveillance data. Specifically, we will describe available surveillance data sources, describe community-level outcomes, illustrate effective utilization of the data, and discuss the benefits and limitations of each data source. Public health professionals should utilize local surveillance data to monitor and describe youth violence in the community. Further, the data can be used to evaluate the impact of interventions in improving community-level outcomes.

Characterizing the spatial mismatch between intimate partner violence related healthcare services and arrests in Miami-Dade County, Florida

“…There are several limitations of this study which should be considered when interpreting the results. While crime incident data is a commonly used community-level indicator of violence [ 54 ], prior research showing disparities in the reporting and policing of crime, including IPV, demonstrates that the IPV arrest rate is an imperfect proxy for IPV activity [ 29 , 49 ]. As such, our findings may be driven, in part, by racial/ethnic disparities in arrests of IPV rather than actual incidence or prevalence of IPV in communities [ 29 ].…”

Effects of age, period, and birth cohort on homicide mortality in the city of São Paulo, Brazil, from 1996 to 2015

“…Although São Paulo city is an heterogenous urban location with socioeconomic issues, the unemployment rate reduced by 18.6% from 2001 to 2008 28 . This data is consistent with our findings once its effects on interpersonal violence in young people.…”

“…To continue declining lethal violence in São Paulo city is critical to address challenges referred to lethal violence 2 . For that, public policies should focus on strengthening the criminal justice response on homicide crimes and social welfare systems; alcohol and firearms restrictions; education and employment opportunities among the young population; the use community-level data to monitor youth violence 28 ; and effective intersectoral interventions for violence prevention empowerment of communities 32 , especially in the most vulnerable social strata.…”

Spatial Analysis of the Impact of a School-Level Youth Violence Prevention Program on Violent Crime Incidents in the Community

“…A major goal of youth violence prevention is reducing community levels of homicide and-related injuries (Mercy et al 2002). Such efforts require the development of comprehensive strategies that include multiple components that focus on risk factors that operate at multiple levels of the social ecology (Matjasko et al 2016) and strategies for collecting data on community-level outcomes (Masho et al 2016). Although school-level interventions are often a key component of comprehensive efforts (Matjasko et al 2016), prior studies have focused on changes in individuals rather than on community-level changes.…”